
Class -BX-^Jl^ 

Book Jlie 

Goisyright]^" 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



INTRODUCTION TO THE 
LIFE OF CHRIST 



INTRODUCTION TO THE 
LIFE OF CHRIST 



BY 

WILLIAM BANCROFT HILL, D.D. 

PBOFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITEaATUBE IN VASSAR COLLEGE 



CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
NEWYORK :: : : : : 1911 




X>1' 



-s 



•.<r 



M^ 



Copyright, 1911 
Bt Charles Scribner's Sons 



Published October, 1911 







©CI.A30n430 






2> 



TO 
E. W, H. 

WHOSE DEEP AND REVERENT INTEREST 
IN ALL THAT RELATES TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 
HAS BEEN AN INSPIRATION 



PREFACE 

This book was written for my own college classes to 
aid them in gaining the preliminary information neces- 
sary for an intelligent study of the life of Christ. It 
deals with a variety of topics, all bearing upon the one 
important question, What are the sources from which 
we gain a knowledge of that life, and how far are they 
trustworthy ? 

There is no lack of literature upon this question; 
indeed, the very abundance of information and dis- 
cussion is the chief difficulty for a beginner. Many of 
the books are minute and learned treatises suited only 
for the specialist. Others are written to defend special 
theories, and presuppose a general knowledge of the 
subject. Most of them deal with but one or a few of 
all the topics to be considered. The only book with 
which I am acquainted that covers much of the field 
in a brief, simple, uncontroversial way is Anthony's 
"Introduction to the Life of Jesus"; but this does not 
treat of the text or the canon, and was published in 
1896, since which time new and valuable contribu- 
tions have been made to our knowledge. 

I have endeavored to present in a clear and concise 
manner the facts which should be borne in mind as 
the Four Gospels are studied, and the problems — as 
yet only partly solved — which these Gospels present. 
With no theories of my own to advocate, I have aimed 

vii 




viii PREFACE 

to make possible a comprehension of theories pre- 
sented by scholars of various schools. And while I 
have frankly stated my own conviction that a search- 
ing criticism of the Gospels only reveals more clearly 
their essential trustworthiness, I hope I have treated 
with fairness and full appreciation those writers who 
maintain the contrary. 

A few years ago I prepared a "Guide to the Lives of 
Christ for English Readers." Its purpose was to give a 
general view of the course of modern thought concern- 
ing the life of Christ, and especially a brief description 
of each of the more important Lives, written in Eng- 
lish or accessible in translation. The need of some 
such guide for the inexperienced student is evident, 
when one realizes how many Lives of Christ, written 
from various stand-points and differing greatly in 
scholarship, are presented for his choice. This work 
is now out of print; so I have added it, somewhat 
condensed and brought down to date, as an Appendix 
to the present volume. 

If this book shall furnish to my students an intro- 
duction to the broad and fascinating fields of Gospel 
criticism, I shall be satisfied. If it shall be of service 
to others who may wish to know what these fields 
contain, I shall be greatly pleased. 

W. B. H. 

Vassab College, May^ 1911. 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Heathen and Jewish Writings 1 

II. Christian Writings Other Than Gospels . 11 

III. The Apocryphal Gospels 21 

IV. The Canon op the Gospels 35 

V. The Text of the Gospels 45 

VI. The Text of the Gospels (Continued) . . 69 

VII. The Date of the Gospels 84 

VIII. The Synoptic Problem 102 

IX. The Johannine Problem 118 

X. Characteristics of Each Gospel 145 

XL The Trustworthiness of the Gospels . . . 171 

XII. The Use op the Gospels for a Life of Christ 185 

Appendix. Lives of Christ 203 

Index 223 



INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE 
OF CHRIST 

CHAPTER I 

HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS 

In studying the life of Christ, as in studying any other 
chapter of history, we must begin by considering what 
are the sources from which we gain our information, 
and to what degree are they trustworthy. Evidently 
the Four Gospels of the New Testament are the chief 
source, and questions that bear upon their trustworthi- 
ness are of supreme importance. But the life of Christ 
is of such vital interest to the world that every possible 
source of knowledge is eagerly examined to see both 
what additional facts it may give us, and in what way it 
may confirm or disprove the facts given in the gospels. 
We turn first to heathen writers. Jesus lived in a 
century when able historians were ready to record any- 
thing of importance that happened in the realm of the 
Caesars. And certainly they could select no subject 
more important and more sure to make their writings 
immortal than the deeds and words of Him from whose 
birth we now date the reigns of the Csesars. If Christ 

1 



2 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

really lived, and was what the evangelists report, shall 
we not find some account of him by Roman historians ? 
Two facts make such a supposition improbable. 
The first is that very little has come down to us from 
those historians who lived in the days of Christ and 
wrote the history of their own times. Indeed, with the 
exception of the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius, 
all Roman history of the first century that can in any 
sense be called contemporaneous has disappeared. 
And the second fact is that no Roman historian would 
think it worth while to write about Jesus of Nazareth. 
Though Judea was a province of the Roman Empire, 
it was a petty one in a remote corner; and its people 
were regarded with contempt or aversion. Their stub- 
born, rebellious character often brought them to the 
attention of the emperor; but that attention was de- 
voted to the task of holding them in subjection. As for 
Jesus, the historian would have smiled at the thought of 
devoting even a paragraph to him. His ministry was 
very brief; his work was mainly among the common 
people — peasants and fishermen; his miracles were 
easily confounded with the mass of imposture in which 
the age abounded; and above all, the refusal of his 
own nation to accept him as its leader, and his igno- 
minious death, seemed abundant proof that he was be- 
neath consideration. For a Roman historian of the 
first century to record the career of Jesus was as un- 
likely as it would be for a Russian historian of to-day 



HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS 3 

to record the career of some brief leader of a little band 
of fanatics in the obscure regions of Daghestan, 

The only place, therefore, where we might find a 
notice of Jesus in heathen history, is in the pages of 
Tacitus or Suetonius; and the only possibility is of 
some incidental mention of him. Such mention we 
do find. Tacitus, who ranks as one of the greatest of 
Roman historians, wrote his annals not long after A. D. 
100. In this work (XV, 44), when telling how Nero 
was suspected of having set fire to Rome in A. D. 64, 
he writes as follows: 

"In order to suppress the rumor, Nero falsely ac- 
cused and punished with the most acute tortures per- 
sons who, already hated for their shameful deeds, were 
commonly called Christians. The founder of that 
name, Christus, had been put to death by the procura- 
tor, Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberius; but the 
deadly superstition, though repressed for a time, broke 
out again, not only through Judea, where this evil had 
its origin, but also through the city [Rome] whither all 
things horrible and vile flow from all quarters and are 
encouraged. Accordingly, first those were arrested 
who confessed; then on their information a great multi- 
tude were convicted not so much of the crime of incen- 
diarism as of hatred of the human race." 

Suetonius was a contemporary of Tacitus, but an 
historian of much less ability. In his lives of the 
twelve Csesars (Claud. 25) he says: 



4 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

"He [Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews, be- 
cause they were constantly raising a tumult at the in- 
stigation of Chrestus." 

The expulsion is the one referred to in Acts 18: 2, and 
took place probably about A, D. 50. We know noth- 
ing more about it. Possibly the Jews quarrelled over 
the claims of Christ, and Suetonius — confusing the 
strange name Christus with the familiar Greek adjec- 
tive Chrestos, often used as a proper name — supposed 
the person who bore it to have been in Rome when the 
quarrel broke out. 

One further mention of Christ, though not by an 
historian, is worth quoting. Pliny the Younger was 
governor of Bithynia, in Asia Minor, about A. D. 112; 
and he wrote a letter (Epistles X, 97) to the emperor, 
Trajan, telling what he had learned about the Chris- 
tians in his province, and asking how he should 
deal with them. The letter is most valuable as a 
picture of Christian life at the beginning of the sec- 
ond century; but for our present purpose we need 
only note that many of the Christians were ready to 
undergo torture rather than renounce Christ, and 
that those who did renounce him made the following 
statement; 

" They afl5rmed that the sum of their guilt or error 
was to assemble on a fixed day before daybreak, and 
sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to 
bind themselves with an oath not to enter into any 



HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS 5 

wickedness or commit thefts, robberies, or adulteries, or 
falsify their work, or repudiate trusts committed to 
them: when these things were ended it was their cus- 
tom to depart, and, on coming together again" (prob- 
ably in the evening for the love-feast), " to take food, 
men and women together, yet innocently." 

The statements of these three writers are practically 
all that is of value in heathen literature concerning 
Christ. They wrote fully three quarters of a century 
after his death, but Tacitus and Suetonius doubtless 
gained their information from earlier documents. 
They state but little, yet that little is enough to give 
Jesus a place in secular history. From it alone we 
should know that he lived in Judea in the reign of 
Tiberius, that he was put to death by Pontius Pilate, 
that he founded a sect which continued after his death, 
and that his followers in later days worshipped him 
as a god, and were willing to endure torture rather than 
renounce their faith. 

Turning next to possible Jewish sources, we find that 
they are few in number. Philo was the ablest Jewish 
writer of the first century, and was a contemporary of 
Jesus; but he lived in Alexandria, his interests were 
philosophical, and there was no special reason why he 
should mention Jesus in any of his writings that are 
preserved. We are not surprised to find that he is 
silent about him; indeed, he probably knew little or 
nothing about the Christians. 



6 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

Josephus, who was born A. D. 37 or 38, and died 
after A. D. 100, is the one Jewish writer who might be 
expected to tell about Jesus; for he spent his early 
life in Jerusalem, where he must have known the Chris- 
tians; and his greatest historical work, " Jewish Anti- 
quities," tells the story of his nation from its beginning 
to the outbreak of the rebellion against the Romans, in 
A. D. 66, thus including the period when Jesus labored 
and died. But we must bear in mind two facts about 
Josephus — he wrote after the fall of Jerusalem, when 
the feeling of the Jews against the Christians was bitter, 
and he wrote to laud his nation to the Romans, who 
considered the Christians a despicable and pestilential 
sect. There was little likelihood, therefore, that he 
would mention Jesus, if he could avoid it, or say any- 
thing good of him if he did mention him. 

In this connection it is instructive to notice what 
Josephus has to say about John the Baptist (Ant. 
18 :5:2): 

" Herod slew him [John] who was a good man, and 
commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to 
righteousness toward one another, and piety toward 
God, and so to come to baptism, for that the baptism 
would be acceptable to him if they made use of it, not 
in order to put away some sins, but for the purification 
of the body — supposing still that the soul was thor- 
oughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, 
when others came in crowds about him, for they were 



HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS 7 

greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared 
lest the great influence John had over the people might 
put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebel- 
lion — for they seemed to act in all things according to 
his advice — thought it heat, by putting him to death, to 
prevent any mischief he might cause." 

The omission of the fact that John preached the im- 
mediate coming of the Messiah leaves the excitement 
caused by his preaching wholly unexplained. Possibly 
Josephus omitted it because any allusion to Messianic 
expectations would arouse Roman suspicions; but 
more probably he felt that by mentioning it he would 
be put in the same dilemma in which the chief priests 
were put by Jesus when he questioned them about 
John (Matt. 21 : 25). 

In Ant. 20 : 9 : 1 Josephus tells how Ananus, the 
high-priest, about the year A. D. 62, caused several per- 
sons to be stoned to death, one of whom was James, 
"the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ." 
This mention of Jesus and his claims, if genuine (and 
the argument to the contrary is not strong), is the more 
emphatic because it is purely incidental. Almost in 
spite of himself Josephus has brought Jesus into his 
narrative. 

The fullest notice of Jesus is in Ant. 18 : 3 : 3, as 
follows : 

" Now about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if in- 
deed one should call him a man; for he was a worker 



8 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

of miracles, a teacher of such men as receive the truth 
with joy. And he drew to himself many of the Jews, 
and also many of the Greeks. This was the Christ. 
And when at the instigation of our chief men Pilate 
had sentenced him to the cross, those who had loved 
him at the first did not fall away. For he appeared 
unto them alive again on the third day, as the holy 
prophets had declared these and ten thousand other 
wonderful things concerning him. And even now the 
race of Christians called after him is not extinct." 

If this passage were genuine, Josephus would be a 
most clear witness to Christ; but unquestionably it is 
not genuine — no Jew who rejected Jesus could write 
it. It is found in all existing manuscripts, but none of 
these are early; and Origen, who died about A. D. 253, 
evidently did not have it in his manuscript, for he says 
expressly that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was 
the Christ. How the passage originated, we can only 
surmise. Josephus was a favorite author in Christian 
circles in early days as well as later. It is possible 
therefore, that when they found in his book no account 
of Christ, they inserted this passage to supply the de- 
ficiency. Or it is possible that Josephus did give some 
slurring account of Christ, which Christian copyists 
changed, as they certainly would, to a favorable one. 
In support of this latter possibility we notice that in the 
section immediately following, Josephus tells a story 
that has no connection whatever with his narrative. 



HEATHEN AND JEWISH WRITINGS 9 

unless he had cast a slur on the divine birth of Christ, 
and wished to suggest a parallel to it. But whatever 
the origin of this famous passage, it is of no value as 
contemporaneous Jewish testimony. 

One more Jewish work should be examined, and that 
is the Talmud. The name means a "teaching" or 
" inference," and is the general term for a huge collec- 
tion of works upon the traditional law, i. e., the law 
which was developed by the scribes and handed down 
orally, as distinguished from the written law found in 
the Old Testament. It consists of two main divisions 
— the Mishna, containing these traditional laws, and 
the Gemara, containing discussions, interpretations, 
illustrations, etc., of the Mishna. It is a vast store- 
house of all sorts of things, ranging from sayings that 
remind us of teachings of Jesus down to those that are 
the dreariest of rubbish. Edersheim says: "If we 
imagine something combining law reports, a Rabbin- 
ical Hansard, and notes of a theological debating club, 
— all thoroughly Oriental, full of digressions, anec- 
dotes, quaint sayings, fancies, legends, and too often 
of what, from its profanity, superstition, and even ob- 
scenity could scarcely be quoted — we may form some 
general idea of what the Talmud is." (" Life of Jesus," 
1 : 13.) The Talmud is the product of centuries; and 
the Mishna probably was not put into writing until 
at least the end of the second Christian century, while 
the Gemara, of which we have two forms (the Jerusa- 



10 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

lem and the Babylon), is two and three centuries 
later. 

In the Talmud are only a few allusions to Christ, 
and these exhibit great prejudice and hatred. Accord- 
ing to them, Jesus was born of adultery, learned magic 
in Egypt, led the people into sin, was entrapped by 
witnesses, tried, kept for forty days that a witness might 
appear in his favor, and then — when none appeared — 
was stoned and afterward hanged, and in Gehenna 
was plunged in boiling filth. Evidently the Talmud 
is worthless as a source for the life of Christ; and its 
statements are valuable only as showing the later feel- 
ing of the Jews toward the founder of the hated Chris- 
tian sect. 



CHAPTER II 

CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS 

From heathen and Jewish sources, which give us so 
little, we turn to the more promising Christian sources. 
And before considering the various gospels, we ex- 
amine other early writings in search of any possible 
mention of Jesus. 

J. New Testament Books 

In the New Testament, besides the Four Gospels, we 
have twenty-three other books, all of which were writ- 
ten in the first century or, at the latest, early in the sec- 
ond century. Whatever they tell us about Jesus is, 
therefore, of high value as coming from the age of the 
apostles or of men who could personally have known 
the apostles. 

The first interesting fact about them is that they give 
us very little about Jesus in addition to what is in the 
Four Gospels. We find one new and beautiful saying 
of his, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" 
(Acts 20 : 35); and, if the shorter form of Luke's ac- 
count of the institution of the Lord's Supper be cor- 
rect, then in I Cor. 11 : 24 we have for the first time 
the words, "This do in remembrance of Me." In I 

11 



12 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

Thess. 4 : 15-17 there seems to be the substance of 
some teaching of Jesus about his second coming. In 
I Cor. 15 : 5-8 we have a Hst of his resurrection ap- 
pearances, more complete than that in the gospels, while 
Acts 1 : 1-14 gives the fullest account we have of his 
ascension and his instructions preceding it. These 
few sayings and facts, all given by Paul or Luke, com- 
prise practically the only additional information in 
the New Testament. It seems strange that there 
should be no more. Of course the epistles were writ- 
ten to readers who already had been instructed in the 
facts of the Christian faith (I Cor. 11 : 23, 15 : 3; II 
Thess. 2 : b, et ah). So there was no need of rehears- 
ing these facts. Moreover, the intense realization of 
a present, unseen Christ, and the earnest expectation 
of his speedy coming again in the flesh, made all Chris- 
tians less disposed to dwell upon the historical past. 
Yet the epistles are full of allusions to the recorded facts 
of Christ's earthly years; and since there must have 
been many facts told by the witnesses besides those pre- 
served in the gospels (c/. John 20 : 30), it is remark- 
able that such facts are ignored. 

The second interesting fact about these New Testa- 
ment books is that w^hen we bring together their scat- 
tered allusions to incidents in the life of Christ, we have 
a mass of information from which we can frame a fairly 
complete outline of that life. And if this is done (see 
Gilbert, "Life of Jesus," 402) we find that the outiine 



CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS 13 

agrees perfectly with the history given us in the Four 
Gospels. This should be borne in mind when sceptics 
try to prove that our gospels are a late invention, full of 
legendary matter. Here is another record of the life of 
Christ — a "gospel outside the gospels" — which would 
still remain, if the Four Gospels were wholly set aside. 

It is true that some of these New Testament books 
are of disputed date and origin, so that sceptics may 
bring the same charge of late invention against them 
as against the gospels. But there are four great 
epistles — viz., I and II Corinthians, Galatians, and 
Romans — which practically all critics agree were writ- 
ten by Paul and before A. D. 60. Whether Paul ever 
met Jesus before the crucifixion is doubtful; but he 
was in Jerusalem soon afterward ; he became a Chris- 
tian within a few years; and he had every opportunity 
to learn about him. Natural curiosity, the hatred of 
a persecutor, the perplexities of an inquirer, the glow- 
ing love of a convert, and the increasing responsibilities 
of a teacher, would make Paul eager to learn all that he 
could — the more so because it was his practice, like 
that of the other apostles, to begin missionary work 
in any new field by telling the story of Jesus, especially 
of his crucifixion and resurrection (See I Cor. 15 : 1-9. 
Cf. Acts 13 : 16-41). 

What, then, can we gather from Paul's four undis- 
puted letters ? We must not expect too much. They 
are written to Christians who already know the story 



14 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

of Jesus, having learned it — most of them — from Paul 
himself. Whatever he says about that story will be 
by way of allusion and not of narration; and silence 
on any point will be no proof of ignorance unless there 
is imperative need of allusion. In simply this inci- 
dental way we learn that Paul knows (to give only one 
reference for each fact): 

The birth of Jesus under the law (Gal. 4 : 4), of 
the seed of David after the flesh, but the Son of God 
and the Messiah (Rom. 1 : 1-4). 

The public ministry, with its limitation to the Jews 
(Rom. 15 : 8); its humiliation (II Cor. 8:9); its band 
of apostles, whom Paul calls by the early name of the 
twelve (I Cor. 15 : 5), and the miracles which were 
wrought by them (II Cor. 12 : 12). 

The teachings of Jesus, which Paul had evidently 
taken pains to learn exactly and which he treats as 
authoritative (I Cor. 7 : 10), distinguishing carefully 
between them and his own opinions (I Cor. 7 : 25). 

The character of Jesus, as the ideal of wisdom (I Cor. 
1:30); truth (Rom. 9:1); self-sacrificing service 
(Rom. 15 : 1-3); gentleness and sweet reasonableness 
(II Cor. 10 : 1), and love (Gal. 2 : 20). 

The details of the Last Supper, which Paul gives 
more exactly than the synoptists (I Cor. 11 : 23-25); 
the attitude of the rulers (I Cor. 2:8); the betrayal 
(I Cor. 11 : 23); the crucifixion (II Cor. 13 : 4); the 
burial and resurrection on the third day (I Cor. 15:[4). 



CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS 15 

The appearances to the disciples after the resurrec- 
tion, of which there is given a fuller list than by the 
evangelists (I Cor. 15 : 5-8). 

These references — which might be increased — 
show that the earthly life of Jesus was well known by 
both Paul and his readers; indeed, such incidental ref- 
erences are more suggestive than fuller statements 
would be, for they presuppose a larger acquaintance 
with the facts in order to make them intelligible. And 
not only do the facts thus indicated agree perfectly with 
the gospel story, but Paul's whole conception of Jesus 
harmonizes with that presented by the evangelists. 
Keim sums up the matter by saying: " The life of Jesus, 
as presented to us by Paul, is indeed rich in material — 
a gospel of the first days — and one which, in spite of 
its insoluble difiiculties, would enable us to dispense 
with any further gospel; or rather, one which prom- 
ises illustration and assistance of every kind to our 
gospels." 

//. The Apostolic Fathers 

The term Apostolic Fathers is used to designate the 
earliest Christian writers whose works are not in the 
New Testament. They all wrote before A. D. 150, and 
might be considered in a general way as pupils of the 
apostles. "They were good men rather than great 
men, and excelled more in zeal and devotion to Christ 
than in literary attainments " (Schaff); and while their 



16 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

writings were often read in the early church, and some 
of them are found in the same manuscripts with the 
New Testament books, we feel that it was a sound 
instinct which finally set them aside as uninspired. In- 
deed, one proof of the inspiration of the New Testa- 
ment is the marked contrast in spiritual elevation, 
wisdom, and power, between its books and those of the 
Apostolic Fathers. Their writings, of which few have 
been preserved, were simple, earnest Christian mes- 
sages to readers whose faith in Christ was already 
established. The only exception is Justin Martyr, 
who belongs to this period, but whose able defence of 
Christianity entitles him to be ranked more properly as 
first of the Apologists who in the next half century 
wrote long and powerful replies to heathen assailants 
of the faith. 

\Miile the Apostolic Fathers, especially Justin Mar- 
tyr, tell much about the life of Christ, they tell almost 
nothing in addition to what is in the gospels. Justin 
Martyr says that he was born in a cave, that his work 
as a "carpenter" was to make yokes and ploughs, and 
that the Jews when mocking him set him on the judg- 
ment seat and said, "Judge us" — all of which seems 
credible. He also says that as Jesus was baptized in 
the Jordan, " WTien he stepped into the water, a fire 
was kindled in the Jordan," which adds to the scene 
a theophany similar to those described in the Old Tes- 
tament. There are, also, in the Apostolic Fathers and 



CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS 17 

still later writers, a few sayings attributed to Jesus 
which are not found in the gospels, and which — from 
that fact — are often designated as the Agrapha, i. e.y 
unwritten. None of them can compare in beauty or 
importance with Acts 20 : 35. The following are a 
sample: 

" They who wish to behold me and lay hold on my 
kingdom, must receive me by affliction and suffering." 

"Be approved money-changers; disapproving some 
things, but holding fast to that which is good.'* 

" In whatsoever things I may find you, in these shall 
I also judge you." 

"Ask for the great things, and the small shall be 
added unto you; ask for the heavenly things, and the 
earthly shall be added unto you." 

"Never rejoice except when ye have looked upon 
your brother in love." 

" He that wonders shall reign, and he that reigns 
shall rest." 

It is doubtful whether any of these sayings are genu- 
ine, though the best of them may contain some reminis- 
cence of Christ's teaching. 

In this connection it is worth while to notice the 
newly discovered sayings of Jesus which Grenfell and 
Hunt unearthed at the site of Oxyrhynchus, in lower 
Egypt, in 1897 and 1903. The first to be discovered 
were on a single leaf of papyrus, somewhat broken 
and illegible and beginning with the middle of a say- 



18 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

ing continued from a previous leaf. They were as 
follows : 

"... and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out 
the mote that is in thy brother's eye." 

" Jesus saith, Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in 
no wise find the Kingdom of God ; and except ye keep 
the Sabbath, ye shall not see the Father." 

" Jesus saith, I stood in the midst of the world, and 
in the flesh was I seen of them; and I found all men 
drunken, and none found I athirst among them; and 
my soul grieveth over the sons of men because they are 
blind in heart. ..." 

" Jesus saith. Wherever there are . . . and there is 
one . . . alone, I am with him. Raise the stone and 
there thou shalt find me; cleave the wood, and there 
am I." 

" Jesus saith, A prophet is not acceptable in his own 
country, neither does a physician work cures upon them 
that know him." 

" Jesus saith, A city built upon the top of a high hill 
and established can neither fall nor be hid." 

The later discoveries were on the back of a survey-list 
of various pieces of land, and have suffered still greater 
mutilation. Grenfell and Hunt give the following trans- 
lation of them, with their own conjectural restoration 
of parts of the missing text indicated by brackets: 

"These are the [wonderful] words which Jesus the 
living [Lord] spake to . . . and Thomas; and he said 



CHRISTIAN WRITINGS OTHER THAN GOSPELS 19 

unto [them], Every one that hearkens to these words 
shall never taste of death." 

" Jesus saith, Let not him who seeks . . . cease un- 
til he finds, and when he finds he shall be astonished, 
and astonished he shall reach the kingdom, and hav- 
ing reached the kingdom he shall rest." 

" Jesus saith [Ye ask ? who are those] that draw us 
[to the kingdom, if] the kingdom is in heaven? . . . 
the fowls of the air, and all beasts that are under the 
earth or upon the earth, and the fishes of the sea [these 
are they which draw] you, and the Kingdom of Heaven 
is within you, and whosoever shall know himself shall 
find it. [Strive therefore ?] to know yourselves, and ye 
shall be aware that ye are the sons of the [almighty ?] 
[Father,] [and] ye shall know that ye are in [the city 
of God ?], and ye are [the city]." 

"Jesus saith, A man shall not hesitate ... to ask 
. . . concerning his place [in the kingdom. Ye shall 
know] that many that are first shall be last, and the 
last first and [they shall have eternal life?]." 

" Jesus saith. Everything that is not before thy face, 
and that which is hidden from thee, shall be revealed 
to thee. For there is nothing hidden which shall not be 
made manifest; nor buried which shall not be raised." 

" His disciples question him, and say. How shall we 
fast and how shall we [pray]? . . . and what [com- 
mandment] shall we keep . . . Jesus saith ... do 
not ... of truth . . . blessed is he . . . " 



20 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

These two groups of sayings seem to have belonged 
to one original collection, whose date critics put some- 
where in the first half of the second century. The 
source of this collection, and consequently its value, 
cannot with the present data be determined. The say- 
ings may be based upon those in the Four Gospels, in 
which case the new material is the product of later 
speculation, and is of little value except as revealing 
the development of Christian thought in the second 
century; or the sayings may present one form in which 
the teaching of Jesus was handed down by tradition, 
in which case they could be used as a source, though not 
a first-class one, for his words. In a minute study of 
the problems connected with the origin and character 
of the Four Gospels these new sayings may give a little 
help; but they are of small importance otherwise, ex- 
cept as their discovery draws our thought to the treas- 
ures that may yet be found in that wonderful land of 
Egypt, where the things of yesterday seem old and 
crumbling, while the things of centuries ago are fresh 
and perfectly preserved. 



CHAPTER III 

THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 

The word apocryphal has had a long and interesting 
history through which it has gained several distinct 
and widely unlike meanings. Uncanonical is one 
meaning; and any gospel that failed to gain a place in 
the list (canon) of the New Testament books may for 
that reason be called an apocryphal gospel. Spurious 
and, therefore, untrustworthy, is another meaning; and 
a gospel that is a mere fabrication with no historical 
value may for that reason be called an apocryphal gos- 
pel. This gives rise to confusion and unfair treatment 
when apocryphal gospels are discussed. All of them 
are uncanonical, but only some of them are worthless; 
yet they are spoken of sometimes as if they all were 
beneath serious attention, and at other times as if they 
all stood on a level with the canonical gospels, and had 
been kept out of the New Testament by accident or 
prejudice. We may avoid this confusion, and under- 
stand what basis there is for each of these opinions, by 
dividing the apocryphal gospels into two classes, and 

considering each separately. 

21 



22 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

I. The Rejected Gospels 

There are certain chapters in the history of Jesus 
that are passed over in partial or complete silence by 
the New Testament writers, which appeal deeply to 
human curiosity. We should like to know more about 
Mary and Joseph, and the home in Nazareth, and the 
years which Jesus as a boy and man spent there; and 
we should like to know something about the mysterious 
period between his death and resurrection, when, 
though his body was lying in the new sepulchre, his 
spirit must have been active somewhere and in some 
way. Reverence and a recognition of the hopelessness 
of the task keep us from any serious attempt to fill in 
these unwritten chapters. But there were early writers 
who were not thus restrained; and they set forth in the 
form of gospels their ideas as to what these portions of 
the life of Jesus must have been. Such gospels are, of 
course, apocryphal in the sense of wholly untrust- 
worthy; and because intelligent readers never took 
them seriously, we may call them rejected gospels. 
Still, as religious romances — the Ben Hurs of their day 
— they had a wide circulation; and ignorant people 
undoubtedly gave them more or less credence. A num- 
ber of them are preserved and will be found in any col- 
lection of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 
A list of them, with a hint of their contents, is as 
follows : 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 23 

The Protevangelium of James — a history of the Vir- 
gin Mary from the incidents connected with her birth 
to Herod's murder of the babes at Bethlehem. 

The Gospel of Thomas — incidents in the boyhood of 
Jesus in the years from five to twelve. 

The Gospel of Nicodemus — in two parts, usually 
known as The Acts of Pilate and The Descent into 
Hades; the former gives various incidents of the trial, 
death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the latter de- 
scribes the scenes in the world of the dead when he 
appeared there after his death. 

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew — a history of Mary 
and of Jesus' boyhood. 

The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary — practically an 
orthodox revision of the first part of Psuedo-Matthew. 

The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy — partly a repro- 
duction of the Protevangelium of James and the Gospel 
of Thomas, and partly wild legends resembling the 
tales in the Arabian Nights. 

The History of Joseph the Carpenter — an account 
of his life, and more fully of his death, supposed to be 
told by Jesus to his disciples. 

The Passing of Mary — an account in several forms 
of the death and assumption of Mary. 

Of the above works the first two were probably writ- 
ten between the middle and the end of the second cen- 
tury; part of the Acts of Pilate may be of as early a 
date, though the evidence is weak; the other books are 



24 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

a century or two later. They are directly valuable as 
the storehouse from which popular thought and pic- 
torial art drew largely in the Middle Ages, especially 
as regards the Virgin Mary. To understand the story 
of the Madonna, as portrayed by the great artists, one 
must study these gospels. They are indirectly even 
more valuable as a proof of the trustworthiness of our 
Four Gospels. When it is said that what the New 
Testament tells us about Jesus is mainly the invention 
of later days, we have only to turn to these rejected gos- 
pels if we would know what the invention of later days 
would produce. Their stories of Jesus' boyhood, for 
example, are either silly or monstrous. The Gospel of 
Thomas tells how he made pigeons of clay, and by a 
miracle caused them to fly; how he overwhelmed his 
school teachers with shame by displaying his superior 
knowledge; how he was angry with Joseph when he 
corrected him; how he cursed his playmates, caus- 
ing one to become impotent, and another to fall dead, 
so that "no one dared to make him angry"; and the 
other gospels contain stories equally or even more re- 
pulsive. If such things are what Christians of the sec- 
ond century would invent, when they tried their im- 
agination upon the life of Christ, we may rest assured 
that the story told in the Four Gospels is not of their 
invention. 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 25 

II. The Discarded Gospels 

The preface to the Gospel of Luke begins with the 
statement that " many have taken in hand to draw up a 
narrative concerning those matters which have been 
fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us 
who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and min- 
isters of the word." As we shall see later on, Luke 
probably knew of Mark's gospel and of some writing 
by Matthew, but these alone would not be enough to 
justify his statement that " many" were writing gospels. 
Evidently Luke lived at a time when there was a gen- 
eral demand for some written account of Christ's 
words and deeds, and when authors who could draw 
up such an account were busy in doing so. It is worth 
while to consider briefly just how such a demand arose. 

In the early part of the Apostolic Age there was little 
incentive to write a biography of Jesus. He was ex- 
pected to return very soon; his spiritual presence was 
deeply realized; and his brief earthly ministry seemed 
only a necessary preliminary of the glorious Kingdom 
of God. To dwell upon the Jesus of the past would 
be disloyalty to the Jesus of the present, and disbelief 
in the Jesus of the glorious future. Nevertheless, 
there were many inducements to tell something about 
his earthly life. In preaching to the Jews that Jesus 
was the Messiah, any events fulfilling prophecy would 
be rehearsed; in preaching to the Gentiles that Jesus 



26 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

was the Son of God, his miracles and his words of 
superhuman authority would be strong arguments; 
and in preaching to any class of hearers, the story of 
his death and resurrection would be the best means 
of winning converts. And in their own daily life the 
Christians would be constantly turning back to the 
example and teachings of Jesus for guidance and com- 
fort, or pondering upon his deeper sayings for light 
upon the mysteries of the present and the future. So 
the story of Jesus, or at least portions of it, would be 
in constant circulation from the earliest days. 

At the outset the story was, of course, wholly oral. 
The presence of eye-witnesses obviated the necessity of 
resorting to written documents; and, moreover, the 
Jews shared the Oriental feeling, that religious truth 
ought to pass from teacher to learner by word of mouth 
and not by writing. All the great mass of the Talmud 
was for generations handed down orally, and its final 
reduction to writing was opposed by many. And the 
same preference for oral teaching is expressed by Pa- 
pias, a Christian of the second century, when speaking 
of learning about Christ's life: "I did not think that 
what was to be gotten from the books would profit 
me as much as what came from the living and abiding 
voice." Such oral accounts of what Jesus said and 
did would have a more or less stereotyped form, partly 
because any account often repeated grows stereotyped 
in form, and still more because the tenacious Oriental 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 27 

memory reproduces exactly whatever has been deliv- 
ered to it. 

As time went on, and Christianity spread, the need 
of written records would be felt, especially by Gentile 
converts, who were away from the eye-witnesses, and 
did not share the Oriental feeling about books. In 
response to it there would be produced, not biogra- 
phies of Christ, but written copies of these oral group- 
ings of his teachings on some special subject, or of his 
deeds as illustrating or confirming some point of Chris- 
tian faith. His words would naturally be put in writ- 
ing first, because it is more important, and also more 
difficult to retain them exactly in their original form. 
Accordingly, we may suppose that by the middle of the 
Apostolic Age there had come into existence in various 
places little books of Christ's sayings upon various 
topics (e. g., his parables about the kingdom, his 
teachings about the second coming, his missionary 
instructions, his lessons on the greatness of service), 
with or without some brief statement of the circum- 
stances under which they were spoken, and also little 
books telling of certain of his deeds that bore upon 
some special matter of interest (e. g., miracles that 
displayed his love or his divinity, acts that showed 
his attitude toward the Sabbath, the story of his 
passion or of his resurrection), all put together with 
no thought of chronology and no aim at a complete 
history. 

The decade A. D. 60-70 wrought a marked change in 



28 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

Christian thought. Nero's persecution of the Chris- 
tians in A. D. 64 was the first great act of hostihty on 
the part of the Roman government; and while it was 
brief and confined to Rome, it must have caused a 
shock of horror and a sense of fear in every Christian 
circle. And the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 
both made an end of the church which had stood as the 
mother of them all, and forced a reconstruction of Mes- 
sianic ideas and expectations. 

It was at this period that the importance of putting in 
permanent form some record of Christ's earthly years 
seems to have been suddenly and strongly felt. The 
expectation of his speedy second coming had grown 
less keen, so that men began to arrange for the pro- 
longed existence of the church before that event. The 
sense of his spiritual presence was perhaps less strong, 
so that the guidance to be drawn from his earthly 
words and deeds assumed new importance. And, 
above all, the apostles and eye-witnesses were rapidly 
dying off; and unless means were taken to preserve 
their story, it might soon be garbled or wholly lost. 
So men began to write gospels, impelled to this not 
by the historical spirit, but by practical wants, aiming 
not at completeness or exact chronology, but at the 
preservation of whatever they considered most im- 
portant and helpful in the life of Christ. 

They took the material that lay at hand — the written 
records that they possessed and the oral accounts that 
were in their memories — and they wove it together as 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 29 

best they could. And when their work was completed, 
they offered it to the Christian circles in which they 
lived as their humble contribution toward keeping 
alive the memory of what the Lord had said and done 
in the precious years of his earthly ministry. There 
was no thought that in thus writing down the story of 
Jesus they were doing a work more sacred or requiring 
more inspiration than the work of their companions, 
who simply told orally the same story. And Luke 
sets forth very clearly what he considered the essential 
qualifications and also the purpose of an evangelist, 
when he says, " It seemed good to me, also, having 
traced the course of all things accurately from the first, 
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 
that thou mightest know the certainty concerning those 
things wherein thou wast taught by word of mouth." 
How many such gospels were written, both before 
and after Luke wrote his, we shall never know. Of 
some we have fragments or quotations in early writers; 
of some we have only the names; and doubtless there 
were still others. There is always the hope that some- 
where in the sands of Egypt they may be waiting dis- 
covery; but probably they have served their day and 
wholly passed away. For a time they had more or 
less circulation — indeed, some of them were popular; 
but eventually they were discarded for our canonical 
gospels. The reason for this was because either they 
contained nothing except what could be found in bet- 



30 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

ter and more complete form in the canonical gospels, 
or else there had crept into them statements and teach- 
ings which the good judgment of the orthodox church 
could not endorse. When thus discarded, their dis- 
appearance was natural. Copies would not be mul- 
tiplied, and those in existence would be worn out or 
lost. And in the time of Diocletian, when a special at- 
tempt was made by Roman persecutors to destroy 
the Christian sacred books, these discarded gospels 
would be cheerfully surrendered to the inquisitor's 
fire, if by so doing the canonical gospels could be 
kept back. 

The Gospel according to the Hebrews is the most 
famous of these discarded gospels. It is quoted by 
writers from the end of the second century to the fifth 
century; and there is some evidence that it was in ex- 
istence &ve centuries later. Possibly we may yet find 
a copy of it; but all that we know about it now is from 
the quotations and statements in these writers. It 
seems to have been a gospel written in Aramaic, and 
circulating among the Hebrew Christians. Apparently 
there were various forms of it — revisions and additions 
from time to time; and it was eventually translated into 
Greek. There has been much discussion as to its 
origin and value, and it still remains " one of the prob- 
lems and enigmas of early Christian literature" (Mof- 
fatt). Some scholars set it aside as a compilation from 
the first three canonical gospels, with worthless addi- 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 31 

tions and changes; others emphasize it as completely 
independent of our gospels and of equal value with 
them (e. g., Holtzmann, "Life of Jesus," 51). An early 
tradition says that Matthew wrote his gospel in He- 
brew (probably Aramaic); and an attempt has been 
made to prove that the Gospel according to the He- 
brews was Matthew's Hebrew gospel; but this is now 
abandoned. To-day scholars are fairly well agreed 
that in its original form this gospel may be as early as 
those in the New Testament; and if we had it in this 
form, it would be a valuable source for the life of Christ. 
But as we only have a couple of dozen quotations, and 
no means of telling whether these are from an early or 
a late form of the book, the gospel is of little value. 
Nevertheless, its fragments are interesting, if only to 
show why the church finally refused to accept it as an 
authoritative work. Some of them are as follows : 

(Before the Baptism.) "Behold the Lord's mother 
and brothers said to him, John the Baptist is baptizing 
for remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. 
But he said to them. What sin have I done that I should 
go and be baptized by him — unless, perhaps, what I 
have now said is ignorance." 

(At the Baptism.) " It came to pass when the Lord 
had ascended out of the water, the whole fountain of 
the Holy Spirit came down and rested upon him, and 
said to him, My son, in all the prophets I was looking 
for thee, that thou shouldst come, and that I should 



32 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first- 
born son, who reignest to eternity." 

(At the Temptation?) "The Holy Spirit, my 
mother, took me just now by one of my hairs, and car- 
ried me away to the great Mount Tabor." 

(The appeal to Jesus by the man with a withered 
hand, Mark 3 : 1-6.) "I was a builder, seeking my 
living with my hands; I pray thee, Jesus, restore to 
me my health, that I may not basely beg my bread." 

(After the Resurrection.) "The Lord, after hand- 
ing over the linen cloth to the servant of the high-priest, 
went to James and appeared to him; for James had 
sworn he would eat no bread from the hour at which 
the Lord had drunk the cup till he should see him rising 
again from those who are asleep. . . . Bring, the Lord 
says, a table and bread. . . . He took bread and 
blessed and broke it, and gave it to James the Just, and 
said to him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of 
Man is risen from those who are asleep." 

(In the Lord^s Prayer.) " Give us to-day bread for 
to-morrow." 

In the parable of the talents the man who had hid 
his talent is simply rebuked; and it is another servant, 
one who has spent his talents upon harlots and flute- 
players, that is cast into the outer darkness. 

Eusebius (3 : 29) tells us that the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews contained the story of a woman who 
was accused of many sins before the Lord. Possibly 



THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS 33 

this was the story of the woman taken in adultery, 
which certainly does not belong in John's Gospel, 
where we now have it. 

The Gospel according to the Egyptians is first men- 
tioned about A. D. 200, and is named by only three 
writers, though possibly others may have quoted from 
it. One theory about the new-found sayings of Jesus 
(see p. 17) is that they are extracts from this gospel. 
The Gnostics were fond of it; but whether it origi- 
nated among them, or was adapted by them from an 
earlier source, cannot be determined. The few quota- 
tions we have from it are not worth citing. 

The Gospel of Peter is a work about which we knew 
but little until a fragment of it was discovered in Upper 
Egypt in the tomb of a monk a few years ago. Judg- 
ing from this fragment, which begins with Pilate's 
washing his hands and breaks off with Simon Peter's 
going afishing, the book was written in the second cen- 
tury, using our gospels as its basis, and was intended 
to support certain forms of heretical thought which 
then flourished. The fragment is too long to quote; 
and its numerous variations from the gospel story, 
while interesting as a revelation of later thought, are of 
no historical value. 

There are references in early writings to other gos- 
pels about which we know little or nothing more than 
the names, e. g., Gospel of Andrew, Gospel of Barnabas, 
Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of the Twelve, and 



34 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

possibly twenty others. Any conjecture concerning 
their contents, and any attempt to classify them as re- 
jected or discarded, would be idle. 

This completes our examination of the sources other 
than the canonical gospels, and we cannot fail to be 
impressed with the meagreness of its results. " It is a 
significant fact," says Keim, "that, as far as can be 
discovered from these [apocryphal] gospels and from 
the untenable notices in the writings of the Fathers, at 
the end of a hundred years after Christ, every indepen- 
dent and really valuable tradition concerning this life, 
outside of our gospels, was extinguished; and that 
nothing more than a growing mass of fables runs, as a 
pretended supplement, by the side of the latter" 
(Jesus of Nazara, 1 : 45). 



CHAPTER IV 

THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 

Our examination of the sources has shown us that 
practically all our knowledge of the life of Jesus must 
be derived from the New Testament, and also that the 
other books of the New Testament simply confirm and 
to some extent repeat the story given in the Four Gos- 
pels. Accordingly our investigation must henceforth 
centre upon these gospels; and every problem pre- 
sented by them becomes most important. Do we have 
them in their original form, or — if they have been al- 
tered — can we recover that original form ? When were 
they written and by whom? What were the sources 
from which the authors gained their information ? Do 
they give us authentic history, or history mixed with 
later legends and myths, or almost nothing that is his- 
torical? How far are they trustworthy? — that is the 
supreme question. 

It is worth while to notice, however, that the ques- 
tion whether we shall believe in Christ does not de- 
pend altogether upon the question whether the gos- 
pels and the whole New Testament are trustworthy. 

Unlike Mohammedanism, Christianity is not a religion 

35 



36 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

based upon a book. Jesus neither wrote a book nor 
commanded his disciples to write one, Christianity 
lived and spread for many years without any sacred 
writings of its own. It accepted as a precious inheri- 
tance from the Jews their sacred writings — the Old 
Testament — and used them with profit "for teaching, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in 
righteousness" (II Tim. 3 : 16); but certainly it did 
not draw its life and spiritual strength and wisdom 
from the Jewish writings. The promise of Christ on 
the night before his crucifixion, when he told his little 
flock about the future, was not that they should have a 
book in which they could read about him, but that he 
would send the Comforter to teach them, and that he 
himself would be with them and manifest himself 
unto them. Relying upon that promise the apostles 
went forth to win the world to faith in him. He was 
to be proclaimed not by a book but by a church that 
was his continued incarnation, and by a sacrament that 
showed forth his divine sacrifice. And if the New 
Testament never had been written, still the work of 
winning men to Christ would have gone steadily on; 
and belief in Christ would have survived and spread 
through the centuries. For even to-day such belief 
rests for its ultimate foundation not upon proofs that 
the gospels are trustworthy, but upon the outward 
manifestation of his presence and power by faithful fol- 
lowers whose lives and words are a proclamation of his 



THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 37 

gospel, and upon the inward revelation experienced 
by a soul that puts its trust in him. If through some 
miracle of hostile criticism, the gospels should be en- 
tirely destroyed, the Christian world would doubtless 
cry in sore distress, " They have taken away my Lord"; 
but the cry would be just as ignorant and needless as 
when Mary Magdalene first uttered it. 

Nevertheless, when we consider what the gospels 
have been to the church throughout the centuries, 
there seems little danger of overestimating their im- 
portance. They may not be absolutely indispensable, 
but they certainly are most helpful for a knowledge of 
what the Christ once was and therefore still is. We 
may reverently believe that the impulse which led the 
early Christians to record Jesus' words and deeds, was 
a divine one; and that the same divine prompting was 
the real cause of the setting apart of our Four Gospels 
as sacred books. This latter work is the subject of the 
present chapter. In treating of the discarded gospels 
we briefly pointed out the reasons why they were put 
away, and why the Four Gospels of the New Testament 
alone were retained. But it is worth while to consider 
the process of selection a little more fully, and espe- 
cially how these Four Gospels, when thus selected, 
came to be considered inspired books. The technical 
term for this process is the formation of the canon; and 
the term itself may require a preliminary paragraph of 
explanation. 



38 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

The word canon is derived from the Greek word for 
a reed, and its original meaning was a measuring stick 
— a carpenter's rule. All its later meanings, which are 
several, have grown out of this original one, and have 
either the active signification of a measure or standard, 
or else the passive one of something measured or pre- 
scribed. A canonical book is so called because it gives 
the measure or rule of Christian faith, or more probably 
because it has been declared by the church to come up 
to the measure or standard of inspiration required of a 
sacred book. In other words, a canonical book is a 
book that is entitled to a place in the Bible. A list of 
such books is called a canon, e, g. the canon of the Old 
Testament and the canon of the New Testament. 
The formation of the canon of the gospels, therefore, 
is the process by which the church came to regard cer- 
tain lives of Jesus as authoritative and inspired, and 
placed them in the list of sacred books that constitute 
the New Testament. 

The Christian church began, as we have just noticed, 
with no sacred books except those of the Old Testa- 
ment. Indeed, it could have no others because at the 
beginning it did not realize that it was anything other 
than one part of the Jewish church — namely, the part 
that accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah. It ob- 
served the Jewish Sabbath — Saturday — as a sacred 
day, and worshipped in the synagogues, if the Jews 
did not object. It also had its own meetings for wor- 



THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 39 

ship and Christian instruction; and very early it came 
to hold them on Sunday, a day made precious by the 
resurrection of Jesus. At these meetings the central 
theme, of course, was the one which could not be dwelt 
upon in the synagogue. The Old Testament was here 
studied for the light it threw upon Christ's mission; and 
the recollections of those who had known Jesus per- 
sonally, or had gathered from others some precious 
knowledge of his life, were rehearsed for the cheer and 
instruction of all present. Later on, when there were 
books or booklets containing the words or deeds of 
Jesus, these would be read aloud for the same purpose. 
The individual church or some wealthy member of it 
would count such books a choice possession, and when 
a new one was heard of that was fuller or better would 
be desirous to obtain a copy of it. 

Still these written accounts of Christ were thought 
to be in no way different, except in form, from the oral 
accounts; and the preference was rather for the oral. 
Papias, who was born about A. D. 70, doubtless ex- 
presses the feeling and practice of the majority of the 
Christians of his time, when he says, in a passage from 
which we have already quoted : 

"If any one came who had been a follower of the 
elders'* (i. e., of the apostles and their immediate dis- 
ciples) " I questioned him in regard to the words of the 
elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was 
said by Philip or by Thomas or by James or by John 



40 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the 
Lord; and what things Aristion and the presbyter 
John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not 
think that what was to be gotten from the books would 
profit me as much as what came from the living and 
abiding voice" (Eusebius 3 : 39). 

Unless we suppose that these oral accounts were 
deemed inspired and sacred, which is evidently absurd, 
the books which were acceptable simply as a substitute 
for them, could not have been esteemed more highly. 
The teachings of Jesus were regarded as divine and, 
therefore, at least as authoritative as anything in the 
Old Testament; but there was no thought that a book 
in which they were recorded became from that fact a 
divine book. If a Christian of the time of Papias or 
even later had been asked, "\Miat is your canon of the 
Sacred Scriptures ? he would have answered by giving 
the list of those books alone that make up the Old Test- 
ament. 

Meanwhile a process of selection was going on. 
"WTien a church, whose gospel contained only the say- 
ings of Jesus, obtained another that contained the 
deeds as well as the words, it would discard the former 
for the latter. So, likewise, it would prefer a gospel 
that was supposed to tell the story as gathered directly 
from the lips of an apostle, to one of more doubtful 
authority. And if, perchance, the gospel it was read- 
ing contained certain statements that its spiritual sense 



THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 41 

declared not consistent with the Christ it knew by 
personal experience, such a gospel would be set aside 
when a better one came to hand. In this way the 
promise of Jesus concerning the Comforter's mission 
as teacher (John 14 : 26) was being fulfilled. By the 
middle of the second century or a little later, practi- 
cally all Christians in orthodox circles were accepting 
the Four Gospels now in the New Testament as the 
only authoritative ones. The others were either 
quietly discarded, or else were cherished by those only 
who held views that the church pronounced heretical. 
As a matter of fact the church now had a canon of the 
gospels, though it did not yet realize this because it 
had not begun to call these books sacred writings. 

In the last quarter of the second century a great 
change came over the church. Circumstances forced 
the rapid development of creed and church govern- 
ment and the idea of Christian Scriptures. Enemies 
appeared in the bosom of the church itself, and their 
heretical teachings had to be combated. On the one 
hand were teachers who broke with the past entirely, 
and claimed that they themselves were the recipients of 
new and wonderful revelations: these were the Montan- 
ists. On the other hand were sects who professed to 
have esoteric knowledge and mysterious books, handed 
down from the first century, in which new meanings 
were given to the teachings of Christ: these were the 
Gnostics. 



42 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

The church thus confronted and put on its defence, 
seems to have felt that its present inspiration was not 
enough. These enemies also claimed to be inspired, 
and must be met by something stronger than mere 
counterclaims; so the church emphasized the inspira- 
tion that was in the apostles. And because the heretics 
had their own sacred books, or claimed the right to re- 
ject any Christian books that did not agree with their 
own teachings, the church was compelled to emphasize 
the sacredness and consequent authority of the writ- 
ings it had accepted. Almost unconsciously and be- 
fore they were aware of it, these Christians of A. D. 
180-200 had put their treasured volumes on the same 
level with the Old Testament, and were quoting from 
them as inspired and authoritative. The canon of 
the New Testament, which includes the canon of the 
gospels, was set forth. It is a remarkable change; and 
yet it came about very simply and naturally. The 
books were there, and the church was constantly using 
them; the hour had come when their divine authority 
needed to be clearly proclaimed, and the church pro- 
claimed it. The sword of the spirit had been fash- 
ioned long before; but it was not recognized to be a 
weapon until this time of danger when the church 
seized it and used it for battle. 

We call the writers of this period the Apologists, 
because their chief labor was the defense of the faith 
against its enemies. They were able men, and many 



THE CANON OF THE GOSPELS 43 

of them had been heathen scholars and philosophers 
before they were converted to the Christian faith. We 
have much of their writings still preserved, and can tell 
just what books they thought should have a place in 
the canon of the New Testament. And while there 
was not full agreement as to certain books, of which 
some later on were placed in the New Testament and 
others were not, there was full agreement as to the gos- 
pels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the lives 
of Christ, and the only lives of Christ, that the Apolo- 
gists, speaking for the church of their day, proclaimed 
sacred. And the church at no later period of its his- 
tory has ever shown a disposition to question that de- 
cision, or a desire to change it. Of course, there are, 
as there have always been, individual scholars who 
assail the inspiration and authority of some one gos- 
pel or of all four; but such assaults produce little im- 
pression. The church patiently meets the objections 
urged, though none of them are new, and sets itself to 
the task of answering them; but it is never seriously 
disturbed; for its faith in the sacred authority of the 
Four Gospels rests on a deeper foundation than any 
that these critics can undermine, namely, on the wit- 
ness of the Spirit of Christ, testifying to the things con- 
cerning himself. 

By whom, then, was the canon formed ? A popular 
opinion is that certain great councils of the church, 
especially those at Hippo, in A.D. 393, and at Carthage, 



44 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

in A. D. 397 and A. D. 419, definitely determined the 
New Testament canon. But really all that these coun- 
cils did (as also the one at Laodicea, in A. D. 363, if it 
took any action) was to publish in an authoritative 
manner the list of the twenty-seven books which the 
church, independent of the council, was using and 
deeming sacred. The canon was already made, and 
it was not made by any council or any one leader: the 
whole body of Christians had a voice in the matter. 
And we may push our conclusion one step further. 
Deissmann, speaking of the New Testament as litera- 
ture, says, " The fact that scarcely any but popular and 
primitive Christian writings found their way into the 
nascent New Testament, is a brilliant proof of the un- 
erring tact of the church that formed the canon." Is 
this not equivalent to saying — whether Deissmann 
would admit it or not — that the Spirit of God working 
in the church, guiding the selection of its sacred books, 
and endorsing their spiritual power and authority, 
was the real agent in the formation of the canon ? 



CHAPTER V 

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 

In a critical study of the Four Gospels, the first ques- 
tion properly is, Have these books come down to us 
without alteration so that we possess the text in its orig- 
inal form? And that the answer must be no, is evi- 
dent from the fact that among all the existing manu- 
scripts no two exactly agree. Such a lack of agreement 
is not surprising, because the very earliest of these 
manuscripts was written long after the Apostolic Age, 
and is the result of copying the original we know not 
how many times. Until after the middle of the second 
century, as we have seen, no special sacredness was 
attached to the books, such as would lead a copyist to 
take unusual pains with his work; and the men who 
did the copying were often without special training. 
A humble Christian who felt that he would like to pos- 
sess a gospel would set himself in his spare hours to 
making a copy of the one his church or some friend 
owned, or would hire an acquaintance more skilful with 
the pen to copy it for him; and later on this copy might 
serve as the original for another copy made with similar 

freedom. How great, then, the possibility that in the 

45 



46 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

course of time all sorts of errors — omissions, altera- 
tions, insertions, transpositions — might creep into the 
text! Even in later centuries, when a recognition of 
the sacredness of the books caused more care in secur- 
ing correct copies, errors would not be wholly avoided, 
for copying is a process always liable to errors. 

Now, can we by any means correct these errors, 
and thus secure a text which reproduces the original 
words of the evangelists ? This is a far more difficult 
question to answer, yet the answer may confidently be 
yes. The work of securing a correct text belongs to 
that department of Biblical study known as textual 
criticism or (because it furnishes the foundation for 
all further critical work) the lower criticism. The 
material at hand for this work is three-fold; first, ex- 
isting early copies of the gospel in Greek, which was 
probably their original language; second, existing 
early copies in other languages into which the gospels 
were soon translated; and third, any early Christian 
writings containing quotations from the gospels. All 
three, of course, are in manuscript form; but we usu- 
ally call only the first the manuscripts, and the other 
two the versions and the fathers. 

7. The Manuscripts 

In the early Christian centuries the cheapest, hand- 
iest material for writing, was bits of broken pottery — 
potsherds. Ostraca is the Greek name for them — fa- 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 47 

miliar to us through the word ostracize. They would 
be used only by the poorest people, and would seldom 
be large enough to contain more than brief documents 
— a receipt, a memorandum, a short letter, a quotation 
and the like. Since the Christians largely belonged 
to the poorest classes, they were accustomed to use 
ostraca; and if they wished to preserve for their own 
use or send to another a little story about Jesus or a 
saying of his, they would write it down upon a pot- 
sherd. Once written upon this material the document 
was almost imperishable; and when it presently found 
the way to a city rubbish heap, it would wait through 
the centuries for the spade of the explorer. Unfortu- 
nately the explorer has, until recently, scorned such 
humble documents, and thrown them away without 
examination. Now he has grown more appreciative, 
and large collections of ostraca are being made. Some 
of these (see Deissmann, "Light from the Ancient 
East," 41/.) contain verses from the gospels; and 
though nothing of great value has yet been found, 
there is the possibility that at any time we may run 
across ostraca most precious because giving gospel 
passages in the form in which they circulated freely in 
the earliest days. 

The ordinary material for books and letters in the 
first three Christian centuries was papyrus — from 
which name is derived our word paper. It was made 
by cutting the pith of the papyrus reed into thin slices 



48 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

of any desired length, and placing upon one layer of 
these slices another layer at right angles to the first, 
with glue or paste between the two to hold them to- 
gether, and then pressing them and smoothing them. 
This formed a page; and if the document was to be a 
long one, the right-hand side of one page was glued to 
the left-hand side of another, until a long strip was 
formed; and the whole was rolled around a stick, to 
which the last page was fastened. The writing on a 
single leaf might be on both sides; but on a roll or 
volume it was only on the inner side (which would be 
the one where the fibres ran horizontally), and was 
arranged in columns a few inches in breadth so that 
they could be conveniently read as the manuscript 
was unrolled with the right hand and rolled up with 
the left. Papyrus was fragile — especially as it grew 
dry from age — and, unless carefully handled, would 
crack and crumble. A roll would not endure many 
years of use: so we need not be surprised that, with the 
exception of a few fragments found in Egypt, no papy- 
rus manuscripts of the New Testament are known to 
exist. The loss of the original ending of Mark — about 
which we will speak later — may have been caused by 
some accident to the last page of the roll on which the 
gospel was written; or that page, w^hich was next the 
stick, may have become hopelessly worn and broken 
before any one roused to the necessity of making a 
new copy. 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 49 

The other material for books was parchment, the 
finer forms of which are called vellum. It was made 
from the skin of sheep, goats, calves, and other animals, 
by removing the hair, and stretching, scraping, and 
rubbing with chalk the skin until it became thin, flexi- 
ble, and suited for receiving ink. Parchment was 
vastly superior to papyrus in durability, but it was 
too expensive for ordinary use by poor people. Paul 
owned some parchments which he valued highly (II 
Tim. 4 : 13); probably they were books of the Old 
Testament. And when Christian churches began to 
recognize that the books of the New Testament were 
their most precious treasure, they would seek to have 
copies on parchment, if they could afford it. By the 
third or fourth century, the use of parchment had 
generally supplanted that of papyrus. 

A manuscript with leaves like a modern book is more 
convenient than a roll, especially if the reader wishes 
to compare different portions of his text, as he often 
does when reading the New Testament. A manu- 
script in this book form is called a codex, because its 
shape is like that of the wooden tablet smeared with 
wax, which was used for writing (Luke 1 : 63), and 
bore this name. Some papyrus manuscripts were cod- 
ices, though the leaves were too brittle for frequent 
turning; but when parchment came into use the codex 
form became universal. In a codex both sides of the 
page were used; but the influence of the roll form is 



50 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

shown in the fact that the writing is still arranged in 
columns — usually two on a page, though sometimes 
one or three or four. 

Manuscripts were very rarely dated; so their age 
has to be determined in various ways. The material 
on which they are written is one aid; for papyrus, as 
we have noted, went out of use early, while paper made 
of cotton and later of linen rags, did not come into use 
until about the 14th century. A greater aid is the style 
of writing; for fashions in penmanship flourished and 
passed away then as they do now; and an expert can 
determine pretty closely the time when a manuscript 
was written from the style of its writing. 

A broad division of manuscripts according to style 
of waiting is into uncials or majuscules and cursives 
or minuscules. Uncials have the letters unconnected 
and of the same size, usually rather large, with no 
divisions between the words, and very little punctua- 
tion. They remind one of the epistle a small boy 
prints in capitals, beginning MYDEARFATHER. 
Their failure to punctuate and to separate the words 
may sometimes make the sense doubtful; even as the 
EngHsh sentence, GODISNOWHERE, may be most 
devout or atheistic. The cursives, as the name would 
imply, are written in a running hand, i. e., with the let- 
ters connected; and they have the words separated. 
In the early centuries the cursive writing was used for 
business and incidental purposes, and was not con- 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 51 

sidered fine enough for books; but in the ninth century 
a beautiful cursive hand was invented, and thenceforth 
it was used for all manuscripts. The earliest copies of 
the epistles and possibly of the other New Testament 
books were probably written in the cursive hand, as 
being only incidental writings and for circulation 
among poor people; but when they rose to the dignity 
and value of sacred books they were copied in uncials; 
and these are our earliest extant manuscripts. 

The gradual development of a system of punctuation 
furnishes another means of determining the age of 
a manuscript; and the arrangement of the lines, the 
division into chapters (though not our present one), 
and the notations upon the margin of the page, are still 
other means which we need not describe in detail. 
Enough to say that, in spite of the absence of dates, 
a trained scholar can in most cases tell within less than 
a century the exact age of any manuscript. 

At first, of course, each book of the New Testament 
circulated as a separate manuscript; and even when 
they were brought together, they were rarely all put 
into one manuscript, since with papyrus this would be 
impossible, and with parchment the book would be 
too bulky for convenient use except as a church Bible. 
Usually they were put into four groups, each forming 
a separate manuscript, viz. the Gospels, Acts and the 
Catholic Epistles, the Pauline Epistles including He- 
brews, and the Apocalypse. In addition to these there 



52 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

were, as early as the fourth century, though most of 
the extant manuscripts are much later, lectionaries, 
i. e., books of Scripture lessons arranged for reading 
in church services — the extracts being at first from the 
gospels, and later on also from Acts and the Epistles. 
In reckoning the number of existing manuscripts we 
count each separate one, whether it contains the whole 
New Testament, or one group, or a single book, or 
merely a fragment. Thus reckoning we have, besides 
the lectionaries, over one hundred and sixty uncials, 
and fully three thousand cursives. Of course, the 
number of manuscripts containing the gospels, either 
alone or with the other portions of the New Testament, 
is much less; nevertheless, the gospels were the most 
often copied, and constitute a majority of existing 
manuscripts. In order to distinguish these manu- 
scripts for enumeration and discussion the cursives are 
designated by Arabic numerals, and the uncials by let- 
ters of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew alphabets. And 
as each of the four groups is treated separately, the 
same manuscript, if it contains more than one group, 
may be designated by different numerals. Recent 
scholars are seeking a new system of enumeration that 
shall avoid the use of so many alphabets for the un- 
cials, and shall give the same designation always to a 
particular manuscript. 

No scholar professes to have a knowledge of all this 
great number of manuscripts — in fact, many of the 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 53 

cursives have never been carefully examined. But 
even a tyro in Biblical criticism ought to know some- 
thing about the most famous of the uncials. They are 
the following: 

Codex Alexandrinus (designated by A), so-called 
because it once belonged to the 'patriarch of Alexandria, 
is in the British Museum. Its date is in the fifth cen- 
tury. It has two columns to the page; and while it 
contains most of the Old Testament, it lacks in the 
New Testament all of Matthew to 25 : 6; and John 
6 : 50-8 : 52, and II Cor. 4 : 13-12 : 7. As its des- 
ignating letter would indicate, it was the first of the 
great manuscripts to become accessible to scholars. 

Codex Vaticanus (B) is at Rome in the library of 
the Vatican. Its date is in the fourth century. It has 
three columns to the page; and it lacks some portions 
of the Old Testament, and Hebrews after 9 : 14, the 
Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and the Apocalypse. 
The Vatican has counted this manuscript among its 
treasures for more than four hundred years; it was 
carried off to Paris by Napoleon, and afterward re- 
turned; but only very recently has it been made acces- 
sible to scholars. 

Codex Ephraemi (0), now in the National Library 
at Paris, is of the fifth century. It is a palimpsest, i. e., 
a parchment upon which the original writing has be- 
come very dim by fading or by deliberate erasion, and 
a second writing has been placed over the first. The 



54 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

second writing in this case is the works of Ephraem 
the Syrian — hence the name of the manuscript. It 
has but one column on a page, and is badly stained by 
the use of chemicals to brighten the under writing. 
Originally it contained the whole Bible; but it has been 
pulled to pieces; and the monk who wrote on it the 
works of Ephraem took only disconnected leaves; so 
most of the Old Testament and about one third of the 
New Testament are missing. Portions remain of every 
book in the New Testament except II Thess. and II 
John. 

Codex Bezae (D) was given by Beza, A. D. 1581, to 
the University of Cambridge, England, in whose library 
it still remains. Its date is early in the sixth century. 
It has one column to the page, and contains only the 
gospels and Acts, with some leaves missing. Oppo- 
site each page of the Greek is a Latin translation; and 
both present certain peculiarities of text which must be 
considered later on. 

Codex Sinaiticus (i() was discovered by Tischendorf 
about fifty years ago in a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and 
is now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. The 
story of its discovery is most interesting, but too long to 
be rehearsed here. It has four columns to a page, and 
contains much of the Old Testament and all of the 
New Testament, as well as some other early Christian 
writings. Its date is in the fourth century — about the 
same as that of the Codex Vaticanus. Gregory thinks 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 55 

that both of these codices may have been among the 
fifty fine copies of the Bible which the Emperor Con- 
stantine in A. D. 331 asked Eusebius to prepare for 
him that he might give them to the churches. 

Possessing this multitude of manuscripts, no two of 
which exactly agree, how shall the scholar use them to 
secure the correct text? At first thought it might 
seem that the best way would be to decide which manu- 
script is the earliest, and to adopt the text it gives. 
But that will not do because the earliest manuscript 
we possess is comparatively late, and may be the last of 
a series of copies in which, by carelessness or by dehber- 
ate choice, numerous changes have been made in the 
text. A much later manuscript, if it was copied care- 
fully from a very early one, will really be nearer the 
original. Nor will it do simply to count manuscripts 
and follow the majority, accepting a certain reading, 
if, for example, out of forty manuscripts thirty support 
it and ten are against it. There may be reasons why 
an erroneous reading is a popular one, or why a poor 
text has been copied more times than a good one. 
Neither age nor numbers can be taken as the guide 
to the correct text. 

Errors in manuscripts are due to one of two causes, 
— either to carelessness in copying, or to deliberate 
changes made by the copyist. These two classes of 
errors must be treated separately in any discussion 
of how to discover and correct them. And while our 



56 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

subject is simply the gospels, whatever is said concern- 
ing them applies equally to the other books of the New 
Testament. 

No manuscript is wholly free from mistakes made 
by the carelessness of the writer. In fact, if we had 
the original autograph of one of the gospels, we might 
find in it some error caused, as we say, by a slip of the 
pen. The statement in Matt. 23 : 35 that Zachariah 
was the son of Barachiah, instead of the son of Jehoiada, 
may possibly have been such a slip. Copyists in old 
times made exactly the same blunders that copyists in 
the present day make — omitting, transposing, or re- 
peating words, changing spelling, confounding one 
word with another and the like. In the case of the 
gospels two other possible causes of error in copying 
existed. When the owner of a manuscript wished to 
preserve some item of interest, such as an additional 
fact or an interpretation, he would make a note of it 
next to the text on the margin; and a copyist might 
suppose it was something accidentally omitted, and so 
insert it in the text. Again, if the copyist was more 
familiar with one of the other gospels, he might un- 
consciously put down a passage, especially some say- 
ing of Jesus, in the form he already knew rather than 
in the form given in the manuscript before him. 

Errors arising from carelessness are usually not dif- 
ficult to correct, because they are evident. Inspection 
soon reveals whether a manujscript has been made by 



I 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 57 

a blundering copyist; and if it has, its value is cor- 
respondingly diminished. As a matter of fact, the 
mere process of copying has not increased errors in 
the text to the extent that might be expected. If it had, 
the manuscripts of the fourteenth century would be 
widely different from those of the fourth, and indeed 
from one another; whereas the reverse is the case. 
Even a student who knows no Greek can perceive this 
when he takes the King James version, which was 
based on a text made by Erasmus from a few late man- 
uscripts, and compares it with the revised version, 
whose Greek text was constructed mainly from that of 
the great uncials. The difference between the two is 
not so very much, and is due far more to other causes 
— which we shall next consider — than to copyists' 
blunders. 

The other class of errors arises from changes in the 
text made deliberately, and is a far more serious mat- 
ter, which must be considered at some length. 

In the first century doubtless many copies of the 
gospels were made. And, as we have noted when dis- 
cussing the formation of the canon, there was no 
thought that the books were sacred, or that they were 
vitally necessary for the church: there was simply the 
recognition that they were helpful in a Christian life as 
supplying the place of the oral story originally told 
by eye-witnesses. Accordingly the single aim of a 
copyist was to reproduce the original manuscript; the 



58 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

only changes he might make would be unintentional 
ones; and, barring mistakes and omissions, these 
copies would give the original text. If we can dis- 
cover any of them, or any exact reproduction of them 
in later centuries, we may feel that we are in possession 
of substantially the identical words of the evangelists. 

The second century brought a change. The eye- 
witnesses were gone; and the gospels, though not yet 
deemed sacred writings, were recognized as of greater 
importance. There was a natural wish to make them 
as full and accurate as possible. The oral tradition 
had not yet wholly disappeared, for men were still 
living who at first-hand or second-hand had received 
it from the apostles; and while that tradition was prac- 
tically the same as the written story, there were dif- 
ferences of various sorts. A Christian making a copy 
of a gospel would incorporate in its text such changes 
or additions drawn from the oral tradition as seemed 
to him worth preserving. Thus it came about that the 
text of this period lacked uniformity. It was treated 
with a freedom such as neither the earlier nor any later 
period encouraged. The differences between different 
manuscripts were not great or important, but they were 
numerous. Additions or omissions, explanatory 
clauses, interpretations, and the like were considered 
justifiable. 

Toward the end of the second century, as we have 
seen, the church awakened to the fact that the gospels 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 59 

and other New Testament writings were as sacred as 
the Old Testament. This put an end to the free man- 
ner of copying them, but gave rise to another kind of 
dehberate alteration. The evangelists were men of 
limited education, and their writings bore traces of this 
fact. So long as the readers also were without special 
literary training, this made no difference. But now 
Christianity claimed many scholars, and was assailed 
by others. If the gospels were to be set forth as 
sacred books, it was important that literary blemishes 
be removed from them. Reverence might check any 
change in their contents, but it did not go so far as to 
forbid improvements in style and diction. To sub- 
stitute a classical word for a colloquial one, to mend 
faults in grammar, to smooth away the roughnesses 
that offended educated readers, seemed no more a 
tampering with the sacred text than to translate it from 
Greek into Latin or Syriac. Indeed, what was such 
improvement but a translation from the language of 
the ignorant into the language of scholars? Only a 
scholar, however, would feel the need of such a revision, 
or venture to undertake it. And there is no indication 
that it was ever done extensively. 

A much more general need was created by the fact 
that manuscripts differed from one another. Before 
the gospels were canonized, this was felt to be no ob- 
jection, — perhaps, indeed, an advantage; but now that 
their words were used as final authority, it was impor- 



60 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

tant to have one definite accepted form of those words. 
For example, in John 7 : 8 the words of Jesus prob- 
ably were "I go not up unto this feast"; nevertheless, 
the account shows that he did go up later on. Some 
copyist, noting this inconsistency, removed it, and gave 
what he thought was Jesus' real meaning, by transform- 
ing "not" into "not yet" through a simple change in a 
single Greek word. As a result there now were some 
manuscripts reading " I go not up," and others, " I go 
not up yet." Which of the two readings was correct ? 
There was need of an authoritative text Such need 
would be felt in the third century, and apparently at- 
tempts were made to supply it; but not until the fourth 
century, when Christianity had become the state re- 
ligion, was the church in a condition to adopt and em- 
phasize such a text. 

If we were constructing a final, authoritative text 
to-day, our one aim would be to reproduce the exact 
words of the evangelists. But this did not seem so im- 
portant to the men of that age. What they wanted was 
a text containing all the matter found in the various 
manuscripts, and avoiding any perplexing disagree- 
ments and difficulties, and suited in style and diction 
to attract readers. To frame such a text was not the 
work of one man or of one generation; but by the mid- 
dle of the fourth century it was framed and came to be 
generally adopted. This was the last stage in the his- 
tory of text development. Thenceforth the work of 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 61 

copyists was simply to reproduce the manuscript that 
lay before them. And manuscripts down to the age 
of printing are fairly faithful copies — usually of the 
text last described. 

In the preceding sketch of the history of the text 
so much has been said about deliberate changes that a 
word of reassurance may be profitable. In whatever 
way copyists altered the text, there is little indication 
that they did it in order to establish new doctrines or to 
give a different picture of Christ. Such a change as 
that in John 7: 8 might be ascribed to a desire to de- 
fend the truthfulness of Jesus; and there are a few 
similar ones; but the ablest critics agree that they can 
find " no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for 
dogmatic purposes " (Westcott and Hort, N. T. in 
Greek, 2 : 282). We can see this for ourselves by 
comparing the Authorized Version with the Revised 
Version, which is a translation of an earlier and better 
text. We discover little changes in every chapter and 
almost every verse; but the picture of Christ and the 
teachings he gave are the same in both. The early 
church may have foolishly thought it could improve 
the form of the gospels; but it recognized the truth 
of their message too plainly to attempt any change or 
improvement in that. 

Having thus seen how the changes in the manuscripts 
originated, we are prepared to understand how critics 
go at the task of working back through the multitude 



62 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

of manuscripts to the original text The first step is 
to divide the manuscripts into groups according to 
their origin and character as described above. West- 
cott and Hort were two English scholars who led the 
way in this. One group is made up of manuscripts 
reproducing the text adopted finally in the fourth cen- 
tury. This is called the Syrian group because its text 
seems to have originated in Syria, or the Antiochian 
group because Antioch was/perhaps, the special Syrian 
city where it originated. The Codex Alexandrinus 
would, so far as the gospels are concerned, be put 
mainly in this group, and so — to a less degree — would 
the Codex Ephraemi. 

Of the writers who prepared this Syrian or Anti- 
ochian text, Westcott and Hort say (id., 134): "They 
were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling blocks 
out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this 
could be done without recourse to violent measures. 
They were apparently equally desirous that he should 
have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all 
existing texts, provided it did not confuse the context or 
introduce seeming contradictions." They so wrought 
at the text that "it presents the New Testament in a 
form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impover- 
ished in sense and force, more ^tted for cursory peru- 
sal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study." 
Gregory (Canon and Text of the New Testament, 501) 
bluntly says of it: "This text is the worst text in exist- 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 63 

ence." Our own interest in it is great, since the King 
James Version reproduces it. It was the general char- 
acter of the text, rather than any special faults of the few 
and late manuscripts used by Erasmus, who prepared 
the printed Greek text which the King James transla- 
tors followed, that made a Revised Version necessary. 

The second group is called the Alexandrian because 
its text possibly originated in Alexandria where at 
the beginning of the third century the finest Christian 
scholarship was to be found. This presents the purely 
literary revisions of the manuscripts. In this text " the 
changes made have usually more to do with language 
than with matter, and are marked by an effort after 
correctness of phrase. They are evidently the work 
of careful and leisurely hands, and not seldom display 
a delicate philological tact which unavoidably lends 
them at first a deceptive appearance of originality" 
(Westcott and Hort, id., 131). The group is small and 
of minor importance; in fact, some scholars would not 
recognize it as a separate group. 

The third group is called the Western, though the 
name is somewhat misleading, since its origin was no 
more in the West than in the East. Its text is that 
free rendering of the gospels which seems to have been 
usual everywhere in the second century. The most 
famous manuscript of this group is the Codex Bezse, 
which illustrates the characteristics of the group. 
When Beza presented it to the University of Cam- 



64 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

bridge, he asked that it be preserved but not pubHshed, 
because it contained many variations from the text 
then accepted as accurate, which was the Syrian one. 
Most of these variations are unimportant, but some are 
very interesting. After Luke 6 : 4 there is the follow- 
ing incident concerning Jesus : " On the same day he 
saw a certain man working on the Sabbath; and he 
said to him, Man, if indeed thou knowest what thou 
doest, thou art blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou 
art accursed and a transgressor of the Law." There 
is little reason to question the genuineness of this say- 
ing of Jesus; in a striking way it expresses his attitude 
toward the Sabbath, which was also the attitude of 
St. Paul (Rom. 14 : 5/). In Luke 23 : 53 it adds 
to the account of how Joseph laid the body of Jesus in 
the tomb: "And when he was laid there he put against 
the tomb a stone which twenty men could scarcely 
roll." Matthew says the stone was great; but this 
description of it has a true Homeric flavor. To Jesus' 
words about the greatness of service we have this ad- 
dition in Matt. 20 : 28. " But seek ye to increase from 
little, and from greater to be less," which seems a genu- 
ine saying (c/. James 1:9). Besides these and other 
additions there are also omissions. Examples of them 
can be seen by taking the Revised Version, and noting its 
marginal statement, "Some ancient authorities omit," 
concerning Luke 22 : 19-20, and various passages in 
Luke 24. All these are omitted in the Codex Bezse. 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 65 

If the Codex Bezse stood alone, it could be disre- 
garded — as Beza thought it should be; but though 
there are few existing manuscripts resembling it/ 
there is abundant proof that it represents a form of 
text widely prevalent in the second century — a form 
characterized by additions and paraphrases in which 
no two manuscripts exactly agree. How valuable is 
this text ? That is a question which critics to-day are 
busily discussing. It cannot yet be answered; but the 
general tendency is to attach much more importance 
to the Western text than formerly. For the life of 
Christ it does not seem — at least, so far as we now 
have it — to furnish special aid; but when we study 
the Book of Acts it is — as Ramsay shows in his Life 
of Paul — full of suggestive hints. 

One more group of manuscripts remains, and is most 
important of all. Westcott and Hort call it the Neu- 
tral Group because in it we seem to have a text more 
free from deliberate changes than in the rest; in other 
words, its manuscripts seem to have been copied 
directly or in direct descent from the faithful manu- 
scripts of the first century. The great representatives 
of this group are the two fine uncials, B and S. These 
two uncials, especially B, were used by Westcott and 

* A fine uncial manuscript of the Four Gospels, recently dis- 
covered and now owned by Mr. Freer of Detroit, promises to be 
an important addition to the Western group. Scholars who have 
examined it declare that in age and value it is the equal of Co- 
dex Bezae. Its text will soon be published. 



66 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

Hort as chief authorities when preparing their edition 
of the Greek New Testament; and much importance 
was attached to them by the scholars who gave us the 
Revised Version. 

These, then, are the four groups. Their character- 
istics are briefly indicated by the names Gregory has 
suggested for them, viz., the Official Text, the Polished 
Text, the Rewrought Text, and the Original Text. 
The task of determining in which group a particular 
manuscript should be placed is not always an easy one, 
for no manuscript has a text belonging altogether to one 
group. A manuscript is like a man whose blood may 
be comparatively pure, or may be mingled with that of 
one or more alien races up to a point where his nation- 
ality is not readily discerned. When, however, a manu- 
script has been assigned to its proper group, we have 
thereby gained a most valuable aid in determining its 
general worth and the importance of its special varia- 
tions. Its text will display the characteristics of the 
group, and must be valued accordingly. For exam- 
ple, a characteristic of the Western group is additions: 
if, therefore, we find in Western manuscripts an addi- 
tion found nowhere else, we set this down as probably 
not belonging to the original text of the evangelists. 

The work of the textual critic is by no means finished 
when he has classified and valued his manuscripts, and 
has done his best to correct errors evidently caused by 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 67 

careless copying or deliberate change. There still re- 
main passages in which manuscripts of equally good 
authority do not agree; and he must decide what read- 
ing to accept. In doing this the rule he follows is one 
adopted by all textual critics, no matter in what field 
of literature they work, viz., "That reading is prob- 
ably genuine from which the origin and diffusion of the 
others may be most readily explained." In accord- 
ance with this rule a diflScult reading is usually pre- 
ferred to an easy one, since a copyist would be more 
likely to simplify an obscure passage than to do the 
reverse. For example, in Matt. 6 : 1, "righteousness" 
is probably the correct reading, though "alms" is sim- 
pler. Also a shorter reading is preferred to a longer 
one, since the tendency is to enlarge rather than to con- 
dense. For this reason, in Matt. 6 : 4, 6, 18, the word 
"openly" is to be omitted: we can understand why 
it should be added but not why it should be omitted 
by a copyist. A second rule is : " The text should never 
be constructed by pure conjecture; some respectable 
manuscript must contain the reading that is to be 
adopted." This rule is peculiar to New Testament 
criticism, and arises from the fact that the New Testa- 
ment differs from all other ancient books in the vast 
number of its manuscripts still extant. Of most Greek 
and Latin classics there are only a few manuscripts, 
sometimes only one. Of the Old Testament there are 
many Hebrew manuscripts, but none of them is early, 



68 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

and they all reproduce but one form of the text — a 
form fixed by the rabbis after the destruction of Jeru- 
salem. In both cases, therefore, the critic is obliged 
to depend largely upon conjecture, if he would push 
back from the text before him to the original. Though 
this makes his task more simple, the results are not 
satisfactory: concerning many passages he has to con- 
fess that the text is undoubtedly wrong, but that there 
is no possibility of correcting it. The New Testament 
critic is in a much more advantageous position. It is 
true that he is confronted with a multiplicity of read- 
ings which might at first sight make him despair of ever 
determining the correct text; but the very cause of 
despair is also the assurance of success. While every 
manuscript adds to the number of variations, it is also 
a fresh witness to the original text. And from the 
testimony of such a multitude of witnesses the facts 
he is seeking can nearly always be ascertained. Some- 
where among the manuscripts the original reading 
is almost certainly retained. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 
(continued) 

If the importance of ascertaining the original text of 
the gospels were less great, the testimony of the manu- 
scripts would be sufficient. Indeed, in the case of other 
ancient books, no one would think of seeking further 
evidence. But because the gospels are far more im- 
portant than other books, we seek and welcome testi- 
mony from every possible witness. 

II. The Versions 

The second source of knowledge is the versions. 
These are translations of the gospels made as Chris- 
tianity spread among peoples who knew little or no 
Greek, and wished to read the gospels in their own 
language. They are of various dates; but for textual 
criticism only those are valuable that were made be- 
fore our earlier Greek manuscripts. A later version 
might simply follow a text we already have in the man- 
uscripts; but an earlier version must have been made 
from a manuscript earlier than any we now possess, 

and may throw light upon the text of that earlier 

69 



70 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

manuscript. For example, when we are trying to 
determine what was the original text of Luke 2 : 14, 
if we find in a version made in the third century the 
reading, "And on earth peace among men in whom 
he is well pleased," we infer that the translator found 
this reading in the manuscript he used, and are cor- 
respondingly disposed to believe that it was the orig- 
inal reading. 

Of course, a version is in manuscript form, and the 
existing copies are much later than the time when the 
version was made. There may be errors of copyists, 
and there may be deliberate changes to make the text 
agree with that of some Greek manuscript which a 
copyist knew. We have also to reckon with the prob- 
lem of how correct the translation was. In our Eng- 
lish Old Testament the changes in the Revised Version 
arise mainly from the fact that the King James trans- 
lators were not as familiar with Hebrew as are modern 
scholars, and so made mistakes in their work. The 
versions of the gospels may in like manner be faulty. 
Moreover, when we are seeking to secure the exact 
words of the Greek text, a version is but an imperfect 
help because evidently the only way to get back to the 
Greek from the version is by retranslation of it into 
Greek; and there are many possibilities of change in 
words and order when so doing. If the best of Greek 
scholars should translate a chapter of our English 
New Testament back into Greek, the result would 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 71 

not be the exact text which was before the transla- 
tors when they made that English version. Despite 
all these difficulties, "the value of versions is still 
considerable; and in the matter of determining the 
authenticity of whole clauses or sentences inserted 
or omitted by Greek manuscripts, it is sometimes 
very great" (Mitchell, "Critical Handbook," 114). 

In the work of carrying Christianity throughout the 
Roman Empire the apostles and early missionaries 
needed no other language than Greek, so long as they 
kept to the great highways of commerce and civiliza- 
tion. Along the western part of the Mediterranean, 
on both the northern and southern shores, the native 
language was Latin; at the eastern end it was Aramaic; 
in the Valley of the Nile it was Egyptian or Coptic; 
and in each petty region there was also a local dialect 
peculiar to that region. But the great language of 
intercommunication, read and spoken by educated 
men all around the Mediterranean, was Greek. In 
this language a merchant of Corinth would write to 
his correspondent in Antioch; and a strolling teacher 
from Alexandria would lecture to his classes in Rome. 
This is the reason why the gospel story, first in its oral 
form and later in its written form, was put into Greek. 

The Greek of the New Testament is evidently not 
the same as that of the classics or of contemporaneous 
books modelled after the classics; and the cause of the 
difference has been a subject of much debate among 



72 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

scholars. Formerly it was supposed that New Testa- 
ment Greek was a special dialect arising from the 
influence of the Septuagint, or from the fact that its 
writers were men whose native tongue was Aramaic. 
But recently an increased know^ledge of the Greek in 
common use during the first century has shown that 
New Testament Greek is practically the ordinary 
Greek of that day. The evangelists and apostles wrote 
as they preached, in the language familiar to every one 
who used Greek at that time; and, although it some- 
times seemed novel, this was mainly because they had 
a new message to proclaim, and the language must be 
shaped to express it. 

Despite the advantage of having the gospels in 
Greek, the need of having them in other languages 
would soon be felt. The majority of Christians were 
of lowly position, and could read or understand no 
other than their native tongue. Until the Gospels 
were translated into that tongue, they could become 
acquainted with them only at second hand. It might 
be too much to ask for a translation into a local dialect; 
but very soon demand would be made for translations 
into Latin and Aramaic and Coptic. Just when the 
demand was made in each case and how it was met, we 
do not know. Undoubtedly it was made as early as 
the second century; and probably, since the New 
Testament books had not yet been formed into one 
collection, the translations were of separate books in 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 73 

different places and at different times. A very brief 
account of what we know about these versions is 
enough to show their bearing upon the problems of 
textual criticism. 

In the Latin language the most famous version, 
which after various revisions became the authorized 
text of the Roman Catholic Church and still holds that 
place to-day, is the Vulgate — a name given to it in later 
days because then it was the version in common use. 
It was made by the great scholar, Jerome, who com- 
pleted that part of it which contains the gospels about 
A. D. 383. Long before that time, however, the gos- 
pels had been translated into Latin; and one reason 
why Jerome was asked to undertake his version was 
because the text in different manuscripts was not the 
same. There are still existing, mostly as fragments, 
more than forty manuscripts giving us these earlier 
texts — one of which is the Latin portion of Codex D — 
and we can see how much they differ. Scholars are 
not yet agreed as to whether all these manuscripts are 
based upon one original version, and the differences 
arose through errors and alterations by copyists; or 
whether there were several versions differing from one 
another originally. And in case the theory of one 
version be adopted, it is disputed where that version 
was made — in Northern Africa, in Italy, or elsewhere. 
The name Old Latin or Itala has been given to the 
earlier version or versions by way of distinction from 



74 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

the Vulgate. The text of this Old Latin is of the type 
already described as the Western, and represented by 
Codex D. In fact it was the prevalence of this type 
of text in early Latin manuscripts and in quotations by 
Latin Fathers, that led scholars to call it the Western, 
because they supposed it to be peculiar to Latin-speak- 
ing lands. A fuller knowledge has shown that it pre- 
vailed generally in the second and third centuries. 

In the Aramaic language, which was spoken through- 
out the great land of Syria, there were many distinct 
dialects, among them that of Palestine; but the one in 
use at Edessa was the most literary, and is usually 
meant when we speak of the Syriac. The chief Syriac 
version is called the Peshitta, i. e., the " simple," and 
holds a place in the Syrian language similar to that 
which the Vulgate holds in the Latin. It used to be 
extolled as " the Queen of Versions," and tradition de- 
clared that it was made by the evangelist Mark. Its 
supposed antiquity and the fact that its text was of 
the Syrian type, were arguments used in proof that the 
Syrian or Antiochian text, which our Authorized Ver- 
sion follows, is the original text. To-day it is generally 
agreed that the Peshitta is not much, if at all, earlier, 
than the fifth century, and that, like the Vulgate, it is 
a revision of earlier versions. Only two manuscripts 
of these earlier versions have been discovered, viz., 
the Curetonian Syriac, so called from Dr. Cureton who 
discovered and edited it some fifty years ago, and the 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 75 

Lewis Syriac or Sinaitic Syriac, a palimpsest discovered 
in 1892 by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson on Mt. Sinai 
in the same convent where Tischendorf discovered 
Codex X. The latter seems to be the earlier of the two 
versions; but their relation to one another and to the 
Diatessaron of Tatian is a vexed problem. 

The text of these earlier Syriac versions is Western. 
In the Lewis manuscript certain readings in the first 
chapter of Matthew have attracted attention and been 
much quoted in recent discussions about the virgin 
birth of Christ. The readings are: " Joseph, to whom 
was espoused the virgin Mary, begat Jesus who is 
called the Christ" (verse 16), "She shall bear thee a 
son" (verse 21), "She bare him a son, and he called His 
name Jesus" (verse 25). These readings would tend 
to support the theory that the original text of Matthew 
represented Joseph as the father of Jesus; yet in the 
same manuscript we find unchanged the other state- 
ments of this chapter about the supernatural con- 
ception of Jesus. How shall we explain it? The 
translator or some later copyist may have deliberately 
altered the text, in which case the question arises. Were 
his alterations in the direction of orthodoxy or the 
reverse ? — Did he seek to make the birth of Christ more 
divine or more human ? But the theory of deliberate 
alteration fails to explain why the changes were not 
more thorough-going. Why should evident contra- 
dictions be left? Possibly the writer did not consider 
them to be contradictions, in which case the statement 



76 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

of Joseph's fatherhood would be, like those in Luke 
2 : 48 and Matt. 13 : 55, an ordinary way of speaking, 
which could not deceive the reader because the divine 
fatherhood was so clearly stated. 

The Egyptian language (also known as the Coptic, 
a corruption of the word Egyptian) has several dialects, 
with versions in each of them. The age and origin of 
these versions and their relation to one another are 
problems still unsolved. The most important version 
is the Bohairic, which seems to be connected in origin 
with Alexandria. It is unique among the early ver- 
sions in that it represents a Neutral and Alexandrian 
text. This fact has its evident bearing upon the ques- 
tion of the origin of the Neutral text. 

in. The Fathers 

The third source of knowledge of the text is the 
Fathers, or, more exactly. Patristic Quotations. There 
is a great body of Christian literature older than 
any existing New Testament manuscript, and full of 
quotations from the New Testament. Such quota- 
tions ought to throw some light upon the text which 
each writer knew. Two difficulties, however, have to 
be reckoned with. First, the quotation may have been 
changed by a copyist to conform to a text with which 
he was familiar. This is most natural, whether done 
unintentionally or as a deliberate correction of a sup- 
posed mistake. Second, the author himself may not 
have quoted the Scriptures correctly. Sometimes his 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 77 

intention may have been to give nothing more than the 
substance of a Scripture passage; and at other times, 
when he intended to give the precise words, his memory 
may have been faulty. Nothing is more common to- 
day than to hear misquotations of familiar Scripture 
passages even by well-educated Christians. But while 
the testimony of Patristic Quotations has to be taken 
with discrimination, it is of much value in determin- 
ing both the date and the locality of various texts. 
" For instance, if we find a certain well-defined type of 
text in the Old Latin manuscripts and also in the quo- 
tations of certain African Fathers of the second and 
third centuries, we are obviously justified in saying that 
this form of Latin version was used in Africa in the 
second and third centuries. Whereas, if we had not 
the quotations, we should have very little certain 
evidence either as to date or place" (Lake, Text 
of New Testament, 48). 

There is no need of entering upon a consideration 
of the testimony of the Fathers. Enough to say that 
in general the earlier ones bear witness to the use of the 
Western text everywhere, except in Alexandria where 
there is some evidence for the Neutral text. The later 
Greek Fathers seem to have used the Syrian text, while 
the Latin Fathers seem to have used the Vulgate. 

Having considered the methods which critics adopt 
to secure a correct text of the gospels, we look with in- 



78 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

terest to see what measure of success they have gained. 
However, in our emphasis of the subject we must not 
develop an exaggerated idea of the magnitude of their 
task. Westcott and Hort point out (and Gregory 
endorses their statement) that in seven-eighths of the 
New Testament there are no variations of text and no 
grounds for doubt. The problems of the greater part 
of the remaining eighth are wholly unimportant, aris- 
ing from changes in order, differences in spelling, and 
the like. And in the field, thus restricted, where the 
textual critic must labor, the great majority of varia- 
tions are comparatively trivial, since they do not change 
the meaning of the passage. "The amount of what 
can be called substantial variations can hardly form 
more than a thousandth part of the entire text." 

Concerning this debatable part of the text the agree- 
ment among critics is greater than might be expected. 
If we take Westcott and Hort's text as a standard for 
comparison, we shall find a few scholars who believe 
that it departs too far from the Syrian text, and many 
who think that it ought to incorporate more of the 
Western text. Nevertheless, the difference between it 
and the texts adopted by other modern scholars is 
inconsiderable. For working purposes it makes but 
little difference which one of the recent texts is fol- 
lowed. Moreover, no changes brought about in the 
text by critical study affect any of the doctrines of the 
New Testament. This is evident to the English reader 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 79 

when he compares the Authorized Version with the 
Revised Version. In spite of all changes the two are 
practically the same book, giving the same facts, and 
teaching the same truths in the same way. If we wish 
to get close to the exact words which the New Testa- 
ment writers used, we do well to study the Revised 
Version, especially the American Revised Version ; but 
if we are seeking simply to lay hold upon the facts and 
doctrines of the New Testament, it makes little differ- 
ence which version we take. With but few and minor 
exceptions they are the same in both. 

In closing we may notice briefly the chief changes 
in the text of the gospels adopted by the best textual 
critics of to-day. They are interesting in themselves, 
and they illustrate the processes of textual criticism. 

Mark 16 : 9-20.— While this ending to Mark's Gos- 
pel is found in most of the manuscripts, including Co- 
dices A, C, and D, it is omitted in B and ^<, both of 
which end abruptly with verse 8, "For they were 
afraid." In B the copyist has left a blank column after 
this verse, thereby indicating that he knew of a further 
ending, but did not give it because it was not in the 
manuscript he was following. A very few manu- 
scripts have a shorter ending which, with slight varia- 
tions, is as follows : " And they reported briefly to those 
around Peter all the things commanded. And after 
these things Jesus himself (appeared to them and) sent 



80 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

forth through them from the East, and as far as the 
West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eter- 
nal salvation." But these manuscripts also add the 
longer ending with the note that it, too, is found after 
the words " For they were afraid." The later versions 
all give the longer ending; but the Lewis Syriac ends 
with verse 8, two manuscripts of the Bohairic Version 
give the shorter ending in the margin, and one Old 
Latin manuscript has only the shorter ending. There 
is also some testimony of the Fathers that doubt existed 
as to the genuineness of verses 9-16, though mostly 
they are silent about the passage. 

The internal evidence, i. e., the evidence from vo- 
cabulary and style, is not pronounced, but tends rather 
against Mark's authorship. The passage certainly is 
joined most awkwardly to what precedes, as if it 
originally stood independent of it. Add to this its em- 
phasis of the necessity of baptism, and its description 
of miracles as mere marvels (both of which are charac- 
teristic of the thought of the second century rather 
than of the apostolic age), and we have strong reasons 
for rejecting the passage as not genuine, and for re- 
fusing to use it as an authority upon the events after 
Christ's resurrection. Whether the original ending of 
Mark was destroyed by some accident or was sup- 
pressed by the early church for some reason, or 
whether the book never was finished or was ended 
most abruptly at 16 : 8, we never shall know. From 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 81 

some cause the book was incomplete; and the present 
longer and shorter endings are attempts to complete it. 
When and by whom they were made we can only guess. 
An Armenian manuscript was found recently in which 
the longer ending is separated from the preceding 
verses by a space and some flourishes, and bears the 
heading "Of the presbyter Ariston." There was an 
Aristion who lived at the beginning of the second cen- 
tury, and from whom Papias says he gained informa- 
tion about the Lord (see p. 40). Possibly he may 
have been the author of the passage, though we have 
only this single and late testimony to that effect. The 
shorter ending seems to have originated even later 
than the longer one, and we know nothing about its 
authorship. 

John 7 : 53-8 : 11. — This story of the woman taken 
in adultery is precious to the Christian church, and 
harmonizes so completely with the character and work 
of Jesus that there is little question of its truth. Yet 
textual criticism shows plainly that it was not in the 
original gospels. It is absent from all the earliest 
manuscripts except D; and some of those which con- 
tain it, mark it with asterisks or obeli as suspicious. It 
wanders from place to place like an intruder, being 
found in the margin, or after 7 : 36, or at the end of 
the gospel, or in Luke after 21 : 38. The text varies 
considerably — the most curious reading being (8 : 8/) : 
" He wrote upon the ground the sins of each single one 



82 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

of them, and they, when they read It, being convicted 
by their conscience went out." It is found in none of 
the early versions except the Latin, and only some of 
the Latin Fathers know it. The evidence is con- 
clusive against its belonging to the original text. And 
yet the story is undoubtedly a very early one. Euse- 
bius (3 : 39 : 16), describing the writings of Papias, 
says: "He has likewise set forth another narrative 
concerning a woman who was maliciously accused be- 
fore the Lord touching many sins, which is contained 
in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." Probably 
it should be put among the Agrapha as a true story of 
Jesus, which came down at first orally or in the dis- 
carded gospels, and finally was given a place in the 
canonical gospels. 

John 5 : 3-4. — The angel troubling the waters of 
the pool of Bethesda is given by many authorities; 
but it is omitted by A, B, C, D, and i<, and seems to be 
evidently a note of some copyist, which afterward crept 
into the text. Without it there is need of explanation 
why the crowd gathered around the pool, and why a 
sick man must be the first to step into the troubled 
waters if he would be healed. The note gave the 
popular explanation, and is interesting for that reason. 

Luke 22 : 43-44. — The evidence for and against 
this passage, which tells of the angelic ministry and 
the bloody sweat at Gethsemane, is pretty equally di- 
vided. If the passage was in the original text, its 



THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS 83 

omission in some manuscripts is hard to explain. 
But without it Luke's account is so lacking in emphasis 
of Christ's struggle and anguish that a copyist might 
well be led to insert the passage to supply the lack. 
Even so it may possibly be trustworthy. Westcott and 
Hort say: "It would be impossible to regard these 
verses as a product of the inventiveness of the scribes. 
They can only be a fragment from the traditions, writ- 
ten or oral, which were for a time, at least, locally cur- 
rent beside the canonical gospels, and which doubtless 
included matter of every degree of authenticity and in- 
trinsic value." 

Luke 23 : 34a. Very much the same may be said 
of this cry of Christ upon the cross as of the preceding 
passage, though the evidence in its favor is more strong. 
Certainly no one can question the truth of the narrative, 
whether we owe it to Luke or to a later writer. And if 
it was preserved for us by a later writer, then Westcott 
and Hort are right when they say of this and of Luke 
22 : 43-44 that they " may safely be called the most 
precious among the remains of this evangelic tradition 
which were rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the 
second century." 



CHAPTER VII 

THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 

No one of the canonical gospels is dated or bears the 
name of its author. The present titles are late, and 
the nearest approach to a statement of authorship is 
John 21 : 24. In this they differ from the apocryphal 
gospels, which usually make prominent the name of the 
author, and often state the circumstances under which 
the book was written. The difference is a valid argu- 
ment for the genuineness of the canonical gospels, 
since a forger would have taken special pains to make 
an early date and apostolic authorship unmistakably 
evident. 

Concerning the date of the gospels there has been, 
and still is, a great deal of dispute. Were they written 
in the lifetime of the apostles or, at least, of their im- 
mediate disciples, when the facts they narrate were 
fresh in mind, and many witnesses were still living to 
confirm the narrative; or were they written sometime 
in the second century, long after all witnesses were 
dead, and when the oral tradition had become dis- 
torted and unreliable ? This is the problem we must 
discuss in the present chapter. As we take it up we 

shall do well to bear in mind that it never would have 

84 



THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 85 

arisen if the gospels had contained no account of mira- 
cles and no claim of divinity for Jesus. The arguments 
for an early date would be accepted without question 
were the supernatural left out of the books. But those 
who deny that miracles ever happen, and refuse to see 
in Jesus anything more than a human teacher, must 
in some way explain away these portions of the gospel 
narrative; and the easiest way to do so is to say that 
the gospels themselves were written too late to be 
trustworthy. 

Church history has been likened to a road in which, 
soon after leaving the starting-point, we enter a dimly 
lighted tunnel, and have to proceed some distance be- 
fore we emerge into the full light. The tunnel portion 
is the first half of the second century. For the apos- 
tolic age we have the writings in the New Testament, 
which — even if some of them are rejected as being of 
later date — throw a great deal of light upon the his- 
tory of that period, though not enough to answer all the 
questions we would like to have answered. For the 
last half of the second century we have the voluminous 
writings of the apologists, which set forth clearly the 
condition of the church in that period. But for the 
first half of the second century we have only the scanty 
writings of the apostolic fathers, and possibly a few 
of the New Testament books; and from these we can 
gain little knowledge of how the church was progress- 
ing during those years. 



86 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

There is no doubt whatever that the apologists had 
our gospels, and believed them to have been written in 
the first century. But proof that they really were writ- 
ten in the first century, and not, as sceptics affirm, in 
the first half of the second century — that tunnel period 
— is less overwhelming; indeed, it could not be other- 
wise, the period is so obscure. 

The evidence for an early date must be cumulative: 
there is no single fact that can be adduced as conclusive, 
but there are numerous facts pointing tow^ard such a 
date; and when combined their force is vastly greater 
than when taken separately. These facts may be 
grouped under two heads, viz., external evidence, or 
what is gathered from any source other than the gos- 
pels, and internal evidence, or what the gospels them- 
selves indicate. Each group is far too large for us to 
attempt even an outline of its contents. All we can do 
is to give a few items — enough to serve as a sample of 
the whole — and thus to indicate the way in which the 
proof is slowly built up, fact on fact, as a mason builds 
a wall by placing stone on stone. 

7. External Evidence 

If we could find in the apostolic fathers — those 
writers of the first half of the second century — some 
mention of our gospels by name, or even some quota- 
tions that were unquestionably from our gospels, this 
would be the best possible proof that the books were 



THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 87 

then in existence and in use by the church. But such 
proof is lacking. There is no mention of the gospels 
by name; and though there are statements that seem 
like loose quotations from them, they are not exact 
enough to be unmistakably such. For example, in 
I Clement 46 — written perhaps about A. D. 97 — is the 
following passage: "Remember the words of Jesus 
our Lord, for he said. Woe unto that man : good were 
it for him if he had not been born than that he should 
cause one of my elect to stumble. It were better for 
him that a millstone should be hanged about him, and 
that he should be sunk in the sea, than that he should 
cause one of my little ones to stumble." This reminds 
us very strongly of Matt. 26 : 24 and 18 : 6, but we 
cannot be sure that Clement took it from that gospel. 
He may have used some other gospel or collection of the 
sayings of Jesus, or it may have come down to him by 
oral tradition. The same uncertainty as to the use of 
our gospels characterizes all the apostolic fathers. 
This is not surprising, if the canon was not yet formed. 
There was no reason why they should refer to the Four 
Gospels as recognized authorities, or quote their state- 
ments with literal exactness as inspired utterances. 
All this was to come later on. 

Justin Martyr may be reckoned as the last of the 
apostolic fathers or the first of the apologists. He 
died about A. D. 166. He was a voluminous writer, 
though but few of his works remain. In them he 



88 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

often quotes from what he calls the ^' Memoirs of the 
Apostles," which, he says, " are called gospels." These 
were books in general use by the church; for he tells 
us that " on the day called Sunday all who live in cities 
or in the country gather together to one place, and the 
memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the proph- 
ets are read, as long as time permits; then when the 
reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs," 
etc. (First Apology 67). Were these memoirs our 
gospels ? The evidence that they were is strong (see 
Fisher, " Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief," 
new edition 211). While Justin, as we have seen, tells 
certain things about Jesus that are not found in the 
gospels, he never refers to the memoirs for these; 
they seem to have been gathered from other sources. 
But in general his story of Christ is the same as that 
in the gospels; and though his quotations are not ver- 
bal reproductions of the gospel w^ords, they are as 
nearly exact as his quotations from the Old Testament. 
Tatian, w^ho became a Christian in middle life, was 
a disciple and admirer of Justin Martyr. Somewhere 
about A. D. 170 he compiled a life of Christ which he 
called the Diatessaron (i. e., "by means of four") be- 
cause it was made by weaving together four accounts. 
If not originally in Syriac, it was soon translated into 
that language, and became very popular among the 
Syrian churches. In the fourth century Ephraem 
(from whom the Codex Ephraemi was named) wrote 



THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 89 

a commentary upon it. But in the fifth century it was 
put under the ban because it was taking the place of 
the canonical gospels; and, though it was mentioned 
with more or less favor down to the fourteenth century, 
finally all traces of it and of the commentary upon it 
were lost. What could the book have been? Not 
many years ago hostile critics were confidently declar- 
ing that it certainly was not a compilation of the canon- 
ical gospels; and though one old writer had stated that 
it began with " In the beginning was the Word," which 
would indicate that Tatian used the Gospel of John, 
they jeered at this, because they were sure that the 
Gospel of John was not written until just about the 
time when Tatian was compiling the Diatessaron. 
They said that probably the Diatessaron was only a 
brief and imperfect life of Christ compiled from some 
of the apocryphal gospels ; and as for Ephraem's com- 
mentary, they pointed out reasons for believing that it 
was not upon the Diatessaron at all but upon another 
book. It is instructive to mark their discomfiture. 

In the suburbs of Venice was, and still is, an old 
Armenian convent whose monks were scholars. They 
had a library of manuscripts and a printing press; and 
in A. D. 1836 they printed one of their manuscripts — 
the works of Ephraem the Syrian translated into 
Armenian. In the book was the long-lost commentary 
on the Diatessaron. But no one seemed to notice this 
fact, probably because the book was in Armenian and 



90 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

had no table of contents. Then forty years later they 
published the book in a Latin translation; and now 
one of our American scholars — Ezra Abbot — called at- 
tention to the commentary. Immediately it excited 
much interest; and Zahn undertook to reconstruct the 
Diatessaron itself from the quotations in the commen- 
tary. He did a fine piece of work; but something still 
better was in store. The publication of Zahn's work 
stirred up the librarian of the Vatican to examine 
his manuscripts; and he found to his delight that he 
had a copy of the Diatessaron itself, not indeed in the 
Greek or Syriac, but in an Arabic translation. He set 
to work to prepare this for publication, and while 
doing so learned from the Vicar Apostolic of the Coptic 
Church, who paid him a visit, that there was a similar 
manuscript owned by an Egyptian scholar. This sec- 
ond copy was secured for the Vatican; and in A. D. 
1888 the Arabic text was published, and has since been 
translated into English. Now that we have the long- 
lost Diatessaron, what does it prove to be ? A life of 
Christ, compiled from the canonical gospels, and from 
no other source, opening with "In the beginning was 
the Word," and containing the greater part of the first 
three gospels and nearly the whole of John. In other 
words, it is exactly the book that certain critics declared 
positively it could not be! 

What conclusion should be drawn from the fact that 
Tatian used the canonical gospels and no others for 



THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 91 

his Dlatessaron ? Evidently this, that in his day these 
gospels were generally known and accepted as 
authoritative by the church; otherwise he would not 
have selected them in preference to all others; and his 
book would not have been so popular. But for the 
gospels to gain such recognition requires time; and 
it is not easy to suppose that they had been written only 
a few decades earlier. Moreover, as we said, Tatian 
was a pupil of Justin Martyr, and he must have de- 
rived his idea of the value of the gospels from Justin 
Martyr. This confirms our belief that when Justin 
speaks of the memoirs of the apostles that were read 
everywhere in the churches, he means the canonical 
gospels. And it is equally hard to believe that if they 
were written during Justin's lifetime, he would have 
been of the opinion, as he was, that they " were drawn 
up by Christ's apostles and those who followed them" 
(Dialogue 103). As his lifetime goes back to the be- 
ginning of the second century, the argument is strong 
that the books were written in the apostolic age. 

Irenseus, one of the most famous of the apologists, 
wrote, sometime before A. D. 190, a great volume in 
five books entitled "Against Heresies." In this he 
says : 

"Matthew issued a written gospel among the He- 
brews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were 
preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the 
church. After their departure [i. e., death] Mark, the 



92 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down 
to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. 
Luke, also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book 
the gospel preached by him. Afterward, John, the 
disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his 
breast, did himself publish a gospel while he abode at 
Ephesus in Asia" (Book 3, chap. I). 

All scholars agree that by these four books are meant 
our Four Gospels; and Irenseus argues, in a way that 
seems to us fanciful, that it is not possible that the gos- 
pels can be more or less than four in number. But 
where did Irenseus gain his information ? Some of it 
came from Polycarp, who died as a martyr in A. D. 155. 
Before he was put to death, he was told that his life 
would be spared if he would revile Christ; and he 
replied: "Eighty and six years have I served him, and 
he has never done me a wrong; how then can I speak 
evil of my king who saved me ? " If by eighty and six 
years Polycarp meant the whole of his life, he was born 
in A. D. 69; if he meant the time from his conversion, 
which is more likely, he was born still earlier. Poly- 
carp lived in Smyrna and was a disciple of the Apostle 
John, who died, it is generally agreed, about A. D. 100, 
when Polycarp was at least thirty years old. Irenseus, 
when a boy, met Polycarp; and this is what he says 
concerning him and his teaching: 

" I could even describe the place where the blessed 
Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his going out and 



THE DATE OP THE GOSPELS 93 

coming in, and his manner of life, and his personal 
appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the 
accounts he gave of his intercourse with John and the 
others who had seen the Lord, and how he remembered 
their words. Whatever he had heard from them about 
the Lord, about his miracles and his teaching, having 
received them from eye-witnesses of the Word of life, 
all this Polycarp related in harmony with the scriptures. 
These things, through the mercy of God which was 
upon me, I then listened to attentively, noting them 
down, not on paper, but in my heart; and continually, 
through God's grace, I recall them accurately " (Eu- 
sebius 5 : 20). 

Polycarp, therefore, stands as a connecting link be- 
tween Irenseus and the apostolic age. What he learned 
as a disciple from the apostle John, he passed on to his 
own eager boy disciple, Irenseus. To set aside the 
statement of Irenseus about the authorship of the gos- 
pels and their consequent date, involves the rejection 
of testimony as direct and weighty as any that could 
be imagined. Moreover, we must not speak of Poly- 
carp as if he were the only link between the apostolic 
witnesses and later generations: he is simply one of a 
great number just as important, though their names 
are unknown. 

These are but samples of the external evidence for 
the early date of the gospels. A full treatment of the 
subject would involve a careful examination of all the 



94 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

writings preserved from the second century, an esti- 
mate of the historical value of each, and a due consider- 
ation of every statement they contain which in any way 
seems to bear upon the origin of the gospels. Like 
many of the topics we are studying, it would require a 
volume to itself. Enough for our purpose if we gain 
an idea of the way in which scholars pursue the in- 
vestigation. 

II. Internal Evidence 

By internal evidence is meant whatever indications 
of the time when they were written are found in the gos- 
pels themselves — in other words, what " water-marks 
of age" they bear. It is by no means easy — so literary 
criticism has repeatedly shown — to compose a docu- 
ment professedly of an earlier age, and hide all traces 
of its true date. Even the most careful and learned 
writer will make some slip that reveals the forgery. 
Especially difficult, as we shall see, would it have been 
in the second century to forge a document of the first 
century; and there is no probability that any of the 
Christians between A. D. 100 and 150 possessed the 
knowledge and literary skill to meet the difficulties. 
Of course, in an uncritical age a very clumsy forgery 
might pass unquestioned; but no books have ever been 
subjected to such searching examination as have the 
gospels in recent years. Friends and foes have gone 
over them minutely, scrutinizing every line, seeking to 



THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 95 

determine whether they really are what the church has 
always supposed; and it would be indeed marvellous 
if they were late forgeries and remained still unexposed. 

The internal evidence that they were written in the 
first century is two-fold: 

(1) Their freedom from errors in historical facts. 

The revolt against Rome which broke out in A. D. 
66 and was crushed in A. D. 70, wrought a great trans- 
formation in Palestine. Jerusalem was destroyed, the 
temple worship was henceforth impossible, the San- 
hedrin was dissolved, the sect of the Sadducees dis- 
appeared, the character of the Roman rule changed, 
and customs and manners were greatly altered. For 
a man of the second century to write a life of Jesus, in 
which all the details of his environment should agree 
accurately with a period so unlike that of the writer, 
would be a task involving much historical research. 
Present interest has led scholars to undertake such re- 
search; and every detail concerning Palestinian life in 
the time of Jesus that can be found anywhere has been 
carefully collected, so that now we know that period 
better than any writer since the apostolic age possibly 
could. And the result of the research has been to con- 
firm the accuracy of the gospels. The statement by 
Luke concerning the first census under Quirinius (Luke 
2 : 2-3) remains still a matter of sharp discussion, 
and its truth or error is not yet established; but Luke's 
trustworthiness as an historian, shown not only in his 



96 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

gospel, but especially in the Book of Acts, was never 
more clearly recognized than to-day. In no other state- 
ment concerning the times of Jesus do we find it easy 
to maintain that the evangelists were in error. They 
give us a large mass of facts, and some of them very 
minute facts, about Judea and Galilee, the temple and 
its worship, the synagogue, the Sanhedrin, the different 
sects, the Messianic expectations, and other matters 
pertaining to political, social, and religious life in the 
time of Jesus. There is every opportunity for them to 
make a slip in their statements; but they never do. 
The inference, then, is fair either that they lived in the 
times about which they write, or else that they gained 
their story from faithful reporters who themselves 
lived in those times. 

(2) Their freedom from anachronisms in theological 
thought. 

The teaching of Jesus is the seed of all later Christian 
doctrine; but the development of doctrine was so 
rapid in the apostolic age that sometimes it is difficult 
to trace the connection between the theological thought 
of even the New Testament epistles and the teachings 
of Jesus. More than one scholar has boldly main- 
tained that it was Paul and not Jesus who was the real 
founder of Christian theology; and some have gone 
still further and asserted that Paul and his compan- 
ions misunderstood and perverted the simple doctrines 
of Jesus. Evidently, then, it would be diflficult for a 



THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 97 

writer whose whole training had been in the later theo- 
logical atmosphere to avoid reproducing the thought 
familiar to himself and his associates, when he un- 
dertook to compose a life of Christ. Yet the gospels 
are remarkably free from such anachronisms. A few 
examples will make this evident. 

(a) The use of terms. 

In the gospels the word Christ is never a proper 
name; it is always a title, "the Christ," i, e., the Mes- 
siah. But even Paul began to use it as a proper name, 
and soon that use was as common as it is to-day. 

The Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven 
was a term that the apostles rarely used, because of the 
danger that it would be misunderstood by political 
authorities (cf. Acts 17 : 7); but the gospels represent 
Jesus as using it repeatedly. 

On the other hand, the church is a term constantly 
found in the epistles; but it is found only twice in the 
gospels (Matt. 16 : 18 and 18 : 17), and its presence 
in these two passages is by some thought a later inter- 
polation. 

The Son of Man is a title which was seldom used 
in later days, probably because it seemed to emphasize 
the human side of Jesus; but in the gospels it is Jesus' 
favorite title for himself. 

(b) The attitude toward miracles. 

To the apostles, and still more to those of later days, 
the miracles of Jesus seemed the greatest proof of his 



98 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

divinity; and they were accustomed to point them out 
and emphasize them. But the gospels represent 
Jesus as taking a totally different attitude toward 
them. He refuses to perform them simply as a proof 
of his divinity (John 6 : 30); he enjoins silence con- 
cerning them (Mark 5 : 43); he warns his disciples 
against overvaluing them (Luke 10 : 20); and he 
seems to regard them as sometimes a hindrance rather 
than a help in his work. Such an attitude would be 
almost beyond the power of a later disciple to imagine. 

(c) The emphasis of the humanity of Jesus. 

The worship of Jesus led to a constant emphasis of his 
divinity, and a reluctance to admit that he in any way 
shared human limitations and weakness; but we find 
little of this in the gospels. " The strongest argument 
against the view that the gospels are a product of the 
second century lies in the fact that no writer of that 
period would have ventured to represent Jesus in so 
thoroughly a human way as the evangelists represent 
him in the gospels. In these documents he is seen 
tempted as we are, subject to all the infirmities of the 
flesh; not laying claim to omniscience, since he frankly 
says he knows not the day or the hour of his return; 
nor yet to omnipotence, since he affirms that to sit on 
his right hand and on his left is not his to give. Nay, 
startling as it sounds to dogmatic orthodoxy, he de- 
clines even the title of *good,* which is incidentally 
addressed to him — not, of course, that any one could 



THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 99 

convince him of sin, still less that he was conscious of 
it himself, but because he was so thoroughly aware 
of his humanity and of the divine nature that stood 
over against it, that he could not allow for himself 
-an appellation which is only appropriate to God. — It 
would have been impossible for him in any way to ex- 
press more emphatically his true humanity " (Hor- 
ton, "Teaching of Jesus," 55). 

(d) The lack of reverence for the apostles. 

In the second century the apostles were set forth as 
models of wisdom and saintliness; all their human 
weaknesses and sins were ignored as being impossible 
for the wondrous founders of the church. The first 
trace of this process of idealizing can be found in 
Matthew and Luke. There is evident reluctance on 
their part to put down facts to the discredit of the 
apostles, and they sometimes offer excuses for apostolic 
conduct when such facts have to be put down. This 
will be pointed out more fully in a later chapter. But 
in all the four gospels, we find the apostles represented 
as far indeed from ideal saints. Peter denies his mas- 
ter with curses; James and John wish to call down 
fire on a village that will not receive them; all are slow 
to grasp Christ's teachings, jealous of each other, lack- 
ing in faith and courage. They are very human men, 
with plenty of very human faults. There is no indica- 
tion of the second century attitude toward them in 
the story of the gospels. 



100 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

(e) Statements that seem contradicted by later his- 
tory. 

For example, in the missionary instructions to the 
twelve (Matt. 10 : 5-23), there are directions as to 
where and how they shall go, and what they shall take 
with them, that do not seem at all to agree with later 
apostolic missionary work. And again, in the proph- 
ecy about the destruction of Jerusalem, there is the 
declaration that Jesus will return soon after that event, 
and in the lifetime of the present generation (Matt. 
24 : 29, 34). Such statements are puzzles requiring 
study and explanation to harmonize them with the 
actual facts: if the gospels had been written in the sec- 
ond century, they would have been altered or omitted. 

These are but samples of the great mass of evidence, 
external and internal. Putting it all together, the con- 
clusion seems well supported that the gospels were writ- 
ten in the first century. Nearly all critics to-day accept 
this conclusion. Probably the latest of the four gos- 
pels was John ; and concerning its date there has been 
prolonged discussion. Fifty years ago Baur and others 
were positive that John was not written before A. D. 
170. But the advocates of a late date have been forced 
to draw back nearer and nearer the first century, until 
now the most strenuous would hardly try to defend a 
date later than 110-120 A. D., which would be cer- 
tainly in the lifetime of John's immediate disciples, and 



THE DATE OF THE GOSPELS 101 

possibly in the lifetime of John himself, since tradition 
declares that he was but a lad when he followed Jesus 
and that he lived to extreme old age. 

The desire is strong to go still further and fix an 
exact date in the first century for each gospel ; but this 
is far more difficult. The evidence is entirely inter- 
nal, and comes from emphasizing a few minute details. 
We are not surprised, therefore, to find that there is no 
general agreement among scholars. Perhaps the 
opinion of the majority would be that Mark was writ- 
ten before the destruction of Jerusalem, i, e., before 70 
A. D., Matthew shortly before or shortly after that 
event, Luke somewhat later, and John about the end of 
the century. But exact dates are not of supreme im- 
portance. It is enough to be assured that the gospels 
were written sometime in the first century. For down 
to the very end of that century there would still be liv- 
ing some eye-witnesses of Jesus' ministry, and a great 
multitude who had heard the story of that ministry 
from the apostles or other eye-witnesses. And it is im- 
possible to suppose that these would receive and use 
our gospels, unless the facts therein reported agreed 
with the story of Jesus' life as they had learned it from 
these other sources. 



CHAPTER VIII 
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 

The word gospel is the modern form of the Anglo- 
Saxon godspell, which is often explained as meaning 
good-story, but more probably means God-story. It 
is used as a translation of a Greek word (transliter- 
ated into English as evangel) meaning good news or 
glad tidings — a word which in many of the manu- 
scripts is part of the title of each of the first four books 
in the New Testament. Accordingly we usually call 
each of those books a gospel. But the word properly 
denotes not a book, but the message contained in the 
book — the good tidings originally proclaimed by Jesus 
and published to the world by his disciples. Some- 
thing of this meaning still remains in the word when 
used as a title; for instead of the gospel by Matthew, 
{. e., the book written by him, the full title is the Gospel 
According to Matthew, i, e., the good tidings as Mat- 
thew has sent them forth. 

Whether each gospel originally had a title is doubt- 
ful. If it had, we cannot know what that title was; 
for in the oldest manuscripts "The Gospel" seems 

to have been the name for the whole collection, since 

102 



THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 103 

the separate books are headed simply "according to 
Matthew," " according to Mark, " and so on, which 
shows that these headings were not given until the col- 
lection was formed. In any discussion, therefore, of 
the authorship of a gospel, we cannot use the title as 
conclusive evidence; it merely indicates who was sup- 
posed to be the author at the time when the title was 
adopted. It may represent a very early and reliable 
tradition; but it must be taken as nothing more than 
the opinion of some early scribe. 

If the authorship assigned by the titles is correct the 
first gospel and the fourth were written by apostles, 
the second by a Jewish Christian, whose early home 
was in Jerusalem, and the third by a Gentile physician 
who never met Jesus, but was a companion of Paul, and 
must have known intimately many who had known 
Jesus. In this case all four evangelists had abundant 
opportunity to become acquainted with the facts they 
narrate, and every inducement to state them correctly; 
and their gospels ought to be first-class historical docu- 
ments. It would seem, then, that all we have to do is 
to seek evidence confirming or disproving the tradi- 
tional authorship. 

The matter, however, is not as simple as it seems. 
A comparison of the first three gospels with one an- 
other brings before us a problem peculiar and very dif- 
ficult; while a comparison of the fourth gospel with 
the first three discloses another problem quite different 



104 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

but equally difficult. The former problem will be 
sufficient to occupy us in the present chapter. 

The first three gospels seem to have been written by 
three different men at different times, and for different 
classes of readers. Each is so brief that at the utmost 
it can give only a few of Jesus' deeds and sayings, 
selected from a great mass of apostolic recollections, 
concerning which the naive statement is made by the 
fourth evangelist, " There are also many other things 
which Jesus did, the which if they should be WTitten> 
every one, I suppose that even the world itself would 
not contain the books that should be written " (John 
21 : 25). We naturally expect, therefore, to find that 
the three gospels are made up of different selections, 
and have little in common. The fact is just the re- 
verse. For example, Mark has comparatively few of 
the teachings of Jesus, but gives various important 
incidents in his life, from the imprisonment of John the 
Baptist down to the resurrection. Now these same 
incidents, often arranged in the same order and told 
sometimes in almost identical words, form the main 
part of the narrative in Matthew and in Luke. In- 
deed, the whole of Mark except two miracles (7 : 31- 
37; 8 : 22-26), one short parable (4 : 26-29), and 
various scattered verses, is to be found in Matthew or 
Luke or both. So great is the similarity of the three 
that in modern discussions they are called the synoptic 
gospels, or more briefly the synoptics; by which is 



THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 105 

meant gospels giving a common view of the life of 
Christ, or gospels that for profitable study should be 
placed side by side and viewed together; and their 
authors are called the synoptists. Moreover, com- 
mon to Matthew and Luke are many sayings of Jesus 
not given by Mark; and these sayings are even more 
exactly identical than the record of incidents. 

As a result of this remarkable agreement we have to 
study the first three gospels as if they were to a large 
degree simply different forms of one book. We ar- 
range their contents in parallel columns so that they 
can be constantly compared, and call such an arrange- 
ment a harmony of the synoptics. If we add John, 
and thus make a harmony of the Four Gospels, the 
peculiarity of the synoptics becomes still more evident, 
for John has very little matter in common with the 
other three; and parallel columns are usually impos- 
sible. In fact, there is nowhere else in biographical 
literature an instance of three books so similar and yet 
distinct. For, with all their close resemblances, the 
synoptics are distinct. Each relates or omits certain 
incidents and sayings not related or not omitted by one 
or both of the other two; and in a passage common to 
two or to all three the phraseology may be identical for 
a little ways, and then vary without any apparent rea- 
son. Each book has its individual character, its own 
way of treating a topic, and its special purpose; there 
is no possibility of identifying one with another. 



106 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

Illustrations of all this are not necessary; any har- 
mony of the gospels will give them. Of course, if the 
text is in English instead of Greek, the agreements and 
disagreements in phraseology are much concealed; yet 
some idea of them can be gained, even in English, by 
studying such a passage as the plucking of grain on the 
Sabbath (Matt. 12 : 1-8, Mark 2 : 23-28, Luke 6 : 1-5), 
especially if the text used is the revised version. As 
for the matter that is common to all three gospels, a 
very convenient collection of it is given by Lindsay 
as a prologue to the New Testament, published in 
" Everyman's Library." 

The problem which this comparison of the synoptics 
forces upon the student is. How did these resemblances 
and differences arise ? What theory of the origin and 
interrelation of the first three gospels will best explain 
why they are so remarkably alike and yet so evidently 
different? This is the synoptic problem which has 
confronted scholars as far back as the days of St. 
Augustine, and over which they still are working. 
Some of the proposed solutions of it we must now con- 
sider. 

Of course, if we accept what is called the " dictation 
theory" of inspiration, and believe that the evangelist 
had no part in the composition of his gospel other than 
to write down word for word what the Holy Spirit sug- 
gested, there is no synoptic problem. For some in- 
scrutable reason it was the will of the divine author 



THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 107 

that these three books should thus agree and differ; 
no further explanation is necessary. But the dictation 
theory is held by few, if any, thoughtful men to-day. 
In whatever way the Holy Spirit aided the evangelist 
in his work (and that such aid was given is evident, 
when the canonical gospels are contrasted with the 
apocryphal), it is agreed that the human author had 
his own active and intelligent part to perform. He 
had to gather his information as other authors do, and 
to use his mental powers in sifting it and arranging it 
and putting it into words. And the synoptic problem 
centres in the question. From what source or sources 
did the synoptists gain their knowledge of the life of 
Christ, so that they wrote precisely the books we have ? 
One theory, advanced by St. Augustine, we may call 
that of mutual dependence. When the first evangel- 
ist, whichever he was, had written his gospel, the sec- 
ond used it as the basis of his work, following its order 
when this seemed best, adding new material or omit- 
ting what he did not care to repeat, copying the exact 
words or changing them at his pleasure. Then the 
third evangelist had one or both of the earlier works 
before him, and used them in the same way. This 
would seem to account very simply and naturally for 
the agreements and also for the disagreements. But 
as a matter of fact it does not; for when we seek to de- 
termine which gospel was first and which was second 
or third, serious difficulties arise. For example, Mat- 



108 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

thewis much longer than Mark: then evidently — ac- 
cording to this theory — if it was written later, it is an 
enlargement of Mark: or if it was written earlier, it is 
condensed in Mark. But if it is an enlargement, why 
does it omit some important portions of Mark ? Or, if 
Mark is a condensation, why does Mark give some of 
the common facts in much fuller form ? And in either 
case, why should the copying be in one place very exact 
and in another full of alterations? There may be a 
measure of truth in this theory of mutual dependence; 
but it does not fully solve the synoptic problem. This 
is shown by the fact that scholars who adopt it cannot 
agree as to the order of writing of the gospels, or their 
relation to one another. Each of the three gospels has 
been given a first or second or third place in time, and 
each has been supposed to be dependent upon one or 
upon both of the other two; and yet none of these ar- 
rangements has fully solved the problem. 

Another theory we may call that of common origin. 
This supposes that all three gospels are based upon a 
gospel now lost, and derive from it the matter they 
have in common. The lost gospel may have been a 
written one, for the opening statement of Luke, 
** Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up 
a narrative concerning those matters which have been 
fulfilled among us," seems to refer to written gospels 
already in existence, though it is barely possible that . 
the drawn-up narratives were oral. Was this lost gos- 



THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 109 

pel in Greek, and did our evangelists simply take ex- 
tracts from it; or was it in Aramaic, or even in He- 
brew, so that our evangelists each had to translate from 
it? Both suppositions have been advanced — the 
former to explain the way in which the synoptics agree; 
the latter, the way in which they disagree. Evidently 
neither supposition is wholly satisfactory. Indeed, the 
advocates of the theory are forced to fall back upon 
the suggestion that the original gospel appeared in suc- 
cessive editions, and our evangelists made use each of 
a different one. But if there was a written gospel, the 
source of all three synoptics, we are puzzled to explain 
why so important a book — used by three evangelists 
as an authority — should have utterly disappeared. 
More probably the lost gospel was an oral one, or, in 
other words, the synoptists each made use of a com- 
mon tradition concerning Jesus, which the church of 
their day possessed. 

How this tradition or oral gospel came into existence 
can easily be imagined. The apostles remained in 
Jerusalem for comparatively a long time after the 
Day of Pentecost; and their preaching consisted 
mainly in telling the story of Jesus in such a way as to 
make men believe that he was the Messiah. The fre- 
quent repetition of this gospel story would tend to give 
it a stereotyped form; and the tenacity of Oriental 
memories would preserve that form when the hearers 
passed the story on to others. Thus unconsciously 



110 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

before long there would arise a definite oral gospel. 
It would be a story of Jesus dwelling upon such inci- 
dents and teachings as were specially suited for evan- 
gelistic purposes. The deeper sayings of Christ, such 
as those recorded in the Fourth Gospel, would have no 
place in it, because they were not suited to an audience 
of unconverted men. When the Christians were scat- 
tered abroad, after the death of Stephen, they took the 
oral gospel with them. And when the synoptists 
undertook to write memoirs of Jesus, they naturally 
used the oral gospel as the foundation of their gospels, 
adding such additional information as they possessed, 
or thought to be important, and arranging the narrative 
according to their individual plans. 

This theory is certainly correct in its supposition 
that the gospel originally must have been passed along 
in oral form, and doubtless was somewhat of the char- 
acter described. But it does not solve the synoptic 
problem. For example, this oral tradition, since it 
originated in Jerusalem, must originally have been in 
Aramaic: how, then, does it happen that the synoptics, 
which are all in Greek, often agree " to the very finest 
shades of the Greek idiom" ? Again, while the theory 
fails to account for the resemblances, it increases the 
difficulty of accounting for the variations; since, if the 
oral gospel was so stereotyped that it passed from 
hearer to hearer without any change of form, we can 
hardly suppose an evangelist would alter it when writ- 



THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 111 

ing it down. Especially, what shall we say of the nu- 
merous passages common to Matthew and Luke, but 
not found in Mark: were they part of the oral tradi- 
tion; and if so, why did Mark omit them ? Moreover, 
there are indications that some written source was used 
by the synoptists. As an example of this, note how 
each account of the healing of the paralytic (Matt. 
9 : 6, Mark. 2:10, Luke 5 : 24) has the same parenthet- 
ical explanation inserted in the midst of Jesus' words 
in a manner that is awkward even in a written account, 
and would be almost unintelligible in an oral ac- 
count. These and other objections have caused most 
scholars to abandon the oral theory, though a few still 
advocate it. 

The theory most popular at present is called the 
double source or two-document theory; and it posses- 
ses the strong points of both the preceding theories. It 
is based upon a passage in Eusebius which gives us two 
quotations from Papias, who wrote somewhere between 
A. D. 130 and 160: 

"Mark, having become interpreter of Peter, wrote 
down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatever 
he remembered of the things said and done by Christ. 
For he had neither heard the Lord nor accompanied 
him; but afterward, as I said, he accompanied Peter, 
who used to suit his teachings to the needs of his hear- 
ers without attempting to give an orderly arrangement 
of the Lord's words, so that Mark cannot be blamed 



112 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

for thus having written down some things as he remem- 
bered them. For of one thing he was careful — to omit 
nothing of what he had heard, and to state nothing 
falsely. These things are related by Papias con- 
cerning Mark. And about Matthew he says as 
follows: Matthew wrote [or compiled] the Logia in 
the Hebrew language; and each one translated [or 
interpreted] them as he was able " (" Church His- 
tory, " 3 : 39). 

The word Logia means sayings, and is often used 
for divine utterances, {. e., oracles; it may have 
been the term chosen for the utterances of Jesus as 
suited to their divine character. In the present dis- 
cussion it may be left untranslated and used as a 
proper name. 

We have already noted that the first things to be 
written concerning Jesus would be his sayings — both 
because they are not so easily remembered as his deeds, 
and because it is important to preserve their exact form. 
Matthew's early training as a tax-collector would ac- 
custom him to make memoranda: and it is very prob- 
able that, either when he was with Jesus or afterward, 
he made such a collection of sayings, and naturally 
they would be in Hebrew — i. e., Aramaic, the language 
in which they were spoken. Whether this Logia of 
Matthew contained simply the sayings of Jesus (like 
the papyri recently unearthed in Egypt), or whether 
some sayings were prefaced by accounts of the cir- 



THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 113 

cumstances that called them forth, is disputed. The 
latter seems more likely, as often a saying would lose 
its force or its meaning apart from the circumstance. 
So far as we can judge, the sayings seem to have been 
arranged in groups, each related to some practical 
topic of Christian life, and intended for the use of 
Christians who wished to know and follow the teach- 
ings of Jesus on that topic. Perhaps these groups 
were circulated separately, as little manuals of Chris- 
tian teaching, before they were brought together in one 
collection. In any case the Logia was not a gospel, but 
only a collection of Christ's sayings; it cannot, there- 
fore, be identified with our Gospel of Matthew. How- 
ever, the fact that it was written in Hebrew may ex- 
plain the early and universal tradition that Matthew 
wrote his gospel in Hebrew; for that gospel in its pres- 
ent Greek form bears little indication of being a trans- 
lation from a Hebrew original. 

The book which Papias describes as written by Mark 
would be a gospel, and practically a reproduction of the 
oral gospel. It was the story of Jesus as Peter used to 
tell it for evangelistic purposes — such a story as that 
which he told Cornelius: indeed, the outline of Peter's 
story, given in Acts 10 : 37-41, would serve as an out- 
line of Mark's gospel. Mark doubtless added to it 
details gained from other sources; in fact, the question 
most strongly discussed at present is. How far did 
Mark reproduce Peter's direct testimony? Whether 



114 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

this book was our present gospel according to Mark, 
as Eusebius and Papias apparently believed, or was 
an earlier work of which our present gospel is a revi- 
sion, is another question over which scholars dispute. 
Many think that the synoptic problem is more easily 
solved by supposing an earlier work — an Ur-Marcus; 
but others are disposed to accept the gospel in its pres- 
ent form as the original. Thus we account for one of 
the three synoptics, and give Mark special value as 
being the earliest of all our gospels. 

The theory next supposes that these two documents 
— the Gospel of Mark and the Logia of Matthew (the 
latter, perhaps, already translated into Greek) — were 
used as the main sources of our other two gospels. 
The person who wrote the present Gospel of Matthew 
had come into possession of the two documents, and 
had also gathered, from either written or oral sources, 
other important facts about Jesus. It was natural 
that he should bring them together into one book. He 
was not trying to write a biography of Jesus; and he 
liked to arrange his material topically rather than 
chronologically. So in his book we find chapters 
devoted to the sayings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on 
the Mount and the Parables by the Lake, and other 
chapters devoted to the deeds of Jesus, such as the 
group of miracles in chapters eight and nine. There 
was no feeling on his part that the documents he was 
using were sacred; so, as he copied, he changed the 



TEPE synoptic problem 115 

order or the wording to suit his purpose. Nor was 
there the feeling that when he used the words of an- 
other he must make it evident, or else be guilty of 
plagiarism. In that age, as we see from other books, 
the sin of plagiarism was not recognized: an author 
felt at liberty to use as much of another's production 
as he wished without any acknowledgment. Who 
the writer of the First Gospel was, we never shall know. 
Possibly it was Matthew himself. More probably it 
was a later author; and the name of Matthew was 
given to the gospel because it was considered to be 
simply an amplification of Matthew's Logia. 

The theory also assigns a similar origin to the Gos- 
pel of Luke. In early days, all scholars supposed that 
the aiuthor of this gospel was PauFs companion, " the 
beloved physician," Luke. This is questioned by 
many recent critics, but all agree that he was the per- 
son who wrote the Book of Acts, and that he had more 
of the modern historian's spirit than any other evan- 
gelist. His preface states the care with which he col- 
lected his material; and his book shows an attempt to 
arrange it in something of a chronological order. His 
main sources, like those of Matthew, were the Gospel of 
Mark and the Logia; but he has drawn more from 
other sources than did the author of Matthew. He, 
too, follows Mark's order in his general arrangement 
of incidents, but he tries to put Jesus' sayings in an 
historical rather than a topical setting. 



116 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

This in broad outline is the solution of the synoptic 
problem most popular with scholars to-day. They 
are by no means agreed as to its details. Was the 
source we have called the Logia really the book men- 
tioned by Papias, or was it some other collection of 
Jesus' words? There is really nothing to connect it 
with Papias' statement except that it contained many 
sayings of Jesus, and Logia originally meant sayings. 
The recent tendency is to call it simply the source 
(Quelle) document, and refer to it as Q. Did Mark 
make any use of this source? Were there other 
sources common to Matthew and Luke? Did Luke 
hhve the Gospel of Matthew? How far were there 
successive revisions or editions of Matthew and Luke 
as well as of Mark ? Questions like these are easier 
to ask than to answer; they are constantly discussed in 
the endeavor to account for all the complex phenomena 
presented by the synoptics; but even to state the min- 
ute details involved in such discussions would take 
too much space, and pass beyond the purpose of this 
book. 

The fascination of the synoptic problem arises from 
the fact that it is an attempt to get behind our present 
gospels, and recover the earlier form of the gospel story 
out of which they grew. For centuries we have used 
the synoptics as original sources; now we find that 
common sources lie behind them, and we are eager to 
ascertain what these contained. For every step back- 



THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 117 

ward brings us closer to the original statements of those 
who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, 
and to the story of Jesus as it used to be told by the 
church in Jerusalem. 



CHAPTER IX 
THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 

No book in the Bible, unless it be Genesis, has given 
rise to so much discussion and controversy as the 
Gospel of John. The literature it has called forth is 
enormous; merely the titles of books and pamphlets 
would make a large volume. The main question, of 
course, is. How far can we accept this gospel as trust- 
worthy? A few years ago critics seemed to be ap- 
proaching an agreement about the answer; but recent 
writers are again far apart. 

This is not surprising. Differences of temperament 
cause the book to make different impressions as to its 
value. For example. Dr. Philip Schaff feels it to be 
"the most original, the most important, the most in- 
fluential book in all literature"; while Mr. John 
Stuart Mill contemptuously dismisses it — especially the 
speeches of Jesus, and in particular the speech after 
the Last Supper — as "mystical — poor stuff — matter 
imported from Philo and the Alexandrian Platonists, 
and put into the mouth of the Saviour." Evidently 
these two critics would never agree, because the book 

appeals to the one and does not to the other. 

118 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 119 

Still more dividing are differences in theological 
attitude. John sets forth the pre-existence and divine 
claims of Jesus far more plainly than do the other gos- 
pels. It is possible to accept the synoptics as in the 
main trustworthy, and yet see in Jesus simply a human 
teacher — one remarkable indeed, perhaps unique, but 
not divine. This is impossible with John: if the 
Fourth Gospel is trustworthy, we must believe that 
Jesus clearly showed himself to be the Son of God, the 
Saviour of the world. If, therefore, we have already 
come to some decision about the claims of Jesus (and 
no man can live in a Christian world without some 
decision, conscious or unconscious) we have thereby 
taken a definite attitude toward the Gospel of John — 
an attitude which, in spite of all attempts to weigh the 
evidence honestly and without prejudice, will influence 
our decision as to its trustworthiness. 

This almost inevitable difference of opinion is best 
shown in a discussion of the authorship of the gospel. 
What was the relation of the Apostle John to the book ? 
The answer, as in the question of date, must be de- 
termined by external and internal evidence. 

The external evidence that the apostle was the 
author is strong. The earliest is at the end of the 
book itself: "This is the disciple that beareth witness 
of these things, and wrote these things; and we know 
that his witness is true" (21 : 24). This verse im- 
mediately follows the story accounting for the origin of 



120 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

the report that Jesus had said John should not die; 
and it purports to be a declaration by some persons 
who knew John — possibly the elders of Ephesus — that 
the book is by him and is trustworthy. It is like the 
attestation clause to a will; and, like such a clause, it 
must be either a forgery or genuine. If it be a forgery, 
it is put in such a form as to weaken its force, since it 
omits names entirely. A forger would have put the 
matter clearly: "This book was written by the be- 
loved apostle John, and we, the elders of Ephesus, 
bear witness to its truth." If it is not a forgery, then 
it is very early and strong evidence for John's author- 
ship. Possibly it was an endorsement placed origi- 
nally on the margin of the manuscript, and later trans- 
ferred to the text itself. 

There is abundant evidence that in the latter half 
of the second century — that period where we begin to 
have clear light upon church life and thought — every- 
body supposed the apostle John to be the author of the 
fourth gospel, except a few who rejected the teachings 
of that gospel. The statement of Irenseus, already 
quoted (p. 92), is a good example of such evidence. 
But hostile critics refuse to accept the external evi- 
dence or find various ways of diminishing its force. 
For example, in reply to the argument from Ire- 
nseus they point out that according to Papias (see 
p. 40) there was a presbyter John as well as an apostle 
John, and argue that Irenseus may have meant the 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 121 

presbyter, or at least have confounded the apostle 
with him. 

The internal evidence is also strong. Dr. Westcott 
in the introduction to his commentary on John shows 
from the book itself that the author must have been (1) 
a Jew; (2) living in Palestine in the first century; (3) 
an eye-witness of what he describes ; (4) an apostle ; and 
(5) no other than the apostle John. It is a fine piece 
of critical work, in which other scholars have followed 
him; and the argument should be studied as a whole 
for a due appreciation of its force. Nevertheless, 
critics who do not wish to be convinced by it, are not 
convinced: and a recent one (Jiilicher) declares that 
the one unassailable proposition from internal evidence 
concerning the fourth gospel is that its author was 
not the apostle. 

With the same external and internal evidence before 
them, we see that scholars reach very unlike conclu- 
sions. The majority, perhaps, would say that John 
himself wrote or dictated the gospel; but others hold 
that some disciple, before or after John's death, wrote 
down the story as he had gathered it from the apostle, 
or else made use of some narrative prepared by John 
as the basis of the present gospel. Others would ad- 
mit of no connection between the apostle and the book, 
and suppose that the author was another John — whom 
later thought confounded with the apostle — or else 
some unknown person who tried to give his work a 



122 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

semblance of apostolic authorship. "Possibly the 
question may never get beyond this unsatisfactory con- 
dition; possibly it may be settled conclusively by the 
discovery of some lost book. Meanwhile, pending 
such happy discovery, men will continue to differ ac- 
cording to their intellectual and religious idiosyn- 
crasies (Bruce, "Apologetics," 467). 

After all, the authorship does not determine the 
trustworthiness of the book as fully as we might at 
first suppose. If a disciple of John wrote it, he may 
have given with great accuracy the facts he learned 
from John. And even if the author had nothing to do 
with John he may himself have been a disciple of Jesus, 
as Papias says the presbyter John was, or the sources 
on which he relied may have been just as good as John's 
reminiscences. For, on the other hand, it is possible 
that with John himself as author, the book is not trust- 
worthy. He may have idealized his Master to such a 
degree that his account is really a romance; or in his 
old age he may unconsciously have adopted myths 
and legends, then current in the church, so that his 
testimony is little better than that of a later historian. 
It is easier, of course, to dispute John's authorship than 
his accuracy; but the real problem is presented by 
the book itself, and authorship is only one step toward 
solving it. 

The problem presented by the Fourth Gospel — the 
Johannine problem — is precisely the opposite of that 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 123 

presented by the first three gospels — the synoptic prob- 
lem. As we have seen in the preceding chapter, the 
synoptic problem, is Why are the first three gospels so 
remarkably alike ? The Johannine problem is. Why 
is the Fourth Gospel so remarkably unlike the first 
three ? Two biographies or two sketches of the same 
subject may properly be expected to differ: but John 
differs so greatly from the synoptics that we are forced 
to ask, Have we, indeed, the same Christ in John as in 
the other gospels; and if we have, how are the dif- 
ferences in these accounts of him to be explained ? 

The differences must be considered somewhat fully. 
And for convenience we may put them in three groups, 
viz., the details of the public ministry, the teachings 
of Christ, and his self-revelation. 

7. Differences in the Details of Chrisfs Ministry 

(1) Its Locality. — According to the synoptics, Jesus 
remains in Galilee and the coasts until he comes up to 
Jerusalem to die; according to John, he is mainly in 
Jerusalem and Judea, though occasionally he with- 
draws into Galilee or across the Jordan. 

(2) Its Beginning. — The synoptics all date this from 
the time when the Baptist was cast into prison; but 
John describes a period of work before the imprison- 
ment, a part of which was occupied in doing very much 
the same as the Baptist was doing — preaching and 
baptizing. 



124 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

(3) Its Length. — The synoptics tell of but one Pass- 
over (the final one) which would indicate a ministry 
of not more than one year; but John tells of three 
Passovers, and possibly of four, which would indicate 
a ministry of at least two years and perhaps three. 
Three is the popular view; but I think two is held by 
the best scholars to-day. 

(4) Its Success. — According to the synoptics, Jesus 
at first meets with great success; multitudes flock to 
him; his words are heard with approval; he carries 
everything by storm; and it is not until later on that 
popular favor deserts him, after he has refused to be- 
come the kind of king the people clamor for. Then 
he seems to recognize that his work is all in vain, and 
begins to prepare his disciples for the cross which 
awaits him. According to John, he meets with bitter 
opposition from the very outset, and in his first teach- 
ing at Jerusalem speaks of the death which his enemies 
will inflict upon him; and this opposition continues, 
growing only more bitter till the end. 

(5) Its Characters. — Many of the leading characters 
in John's story are not mentioned by the synoptics. 
We may identify Nathanael with Bartholomew; but 
nowhere in the first three gospels do we hear of Nico- 
demus, or Lazarus, or the Woman of Samaria; while 
Thomas, who is so well known to us from the Fourth 
Gospel, is only a name in the first three. 

(6) Seeming Contradictions. — Certain particular 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 125 

statements in John are hard to reconcile with those in 
the synoptics. The most noteworthy of these is that 
concerning the day of our Lord's death. From the 
first three gospels we should conclude without doubt 
that Jesus ate the Passover at the time when the other 
Jews did, and died the following day; but John seems 
to state with equal clearness that he died on the day 
when the Jews were preparing their Passover, at the 
time when the Paschal Lamb was slain to be eaten 
that evening, and, therefore, his Last Supper was on 
the evening before the Passover. 

II. Differences in the Teachings of Christ 

(1) In Form, — (a) Instead of short, incisive sayings 
or groups of sayings loosely connected, John gives 
elaborated addresses on particular themes, e. g., the 
Bread of Life, the Departure of Jesus, and the Coming 
of the Comforter. And instead of parables there are 
allegories such as the True Vine, the Good Shepherd, 
the Door of the Sheepfold. 

(6) The key words of Christ's teachings are unlike 
those in the synoptics, but identical with those in the 
Epistles of John; e. g., light, darkness, life, death, 
witness, the world, to know and to believe. Moreover, 
the style is exactly the same as that of the epistles or 
the prologue of the gospel — a Hebrew style in which 
the statements are brief, simply framed, and connected 
with the constantly repeated copula "and." Indeed 



126 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

it is not always easy to tell where the statements of 
Jesus end and those of the evangelists begin. What 
portions of the third chapter, for instance, should be 
assigned to Jesus and what to John? 

(2) In Subject-Matter. — (a) Certain topics empha- 
sized in the synoptics are hardly mentioned in John. 
For example, the Kingdom of God is nowhere found 
except in the talk with Nicodemus; and instead of the 
second coming of Christ is usually the coming of the 
Comforter. There is complete silence about demoni- 
acs, save as the charge is made that Jesus has a demon. 

(6) The mission of Christ, instead of being re- 
stricted, as in the synoptics, to the Jews, is a universal 
and eternal one. He has other sheep not of this fold: 
he is the light of the world : he will draw all men unto 
him. 

(c) The teachings of Christ in the synoptics are 
simple and generally practical; in John they are 
theological and most profound. For this reason, John 
even in the early centuries was called "the Spiritual 
Gospel," and has been likened to the inner sanctuary 
of the temple. It presupposes an intuitive perception 
of the deepest religious truths when these are pre- 
sented without explanation or comment. 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 127 

III. Differences in the Self -revelation of Christ 

(1) Progress in the Revelation. — In the synoptics 
we find a slow and orderly advance in Christ's unveil- 
ing of his mission and claims. He begins by preach- 
ing the Kingdom of God, but says nothing about him- 
self as the King — the long-expected Messiah. He 
checks the demoniacs when they would proclaim him 
the Son of God. He waits patiently for the time when 
there shall dawn upon his disciples a recognition of 
what he is; and he rejoices greatly when Peter — far 
along in the course of the ministry — pronounces him 
to be the Messiah, the Son of God; but even then he 
charges them to say nothing publicly about it. And 
only in the last week of his life does he throw away all 
reserve, and announce his divine claims to any who 
may listen. 

In John there is no such progress: all is evident from 
the outset. The Baptist points out Jesus as the Lamb 
of God that taketh away the sin of the world (1 : 29). 
His disciples at the very outset hail him as the Son 
of God, the King of Israel (1 : 49). To the woman of 
Samaria, looking for the Messiah, he says: "I am 
He" (4 : 26). And in his public discourses from the 
very beginning he emphasizes his divinity. Even the 
sacramental teachings concerning eating his flesh and 
drinking his blood are given in the discourse on the 
day after the feeding of the five thougand; and John 



128 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

wholly omits any institution of the sacrament in con- 
nection with the Last Supper. 

(2) The Means of the Revelation. — In the synoptics 
the miracles are primarily a manifestation of the sym- 
pathy of Jesus, or, at the utmost, of his power and 
authority. In John they are a revelation of his 
divine, pre-existent glory (John 2 : 11). The very 
first one — the changing of water into wine at Cana — 
causes his disciples to believe on him. They are 
wrought in harmony with his eternal nature — the blind 
man is given sight because he is the Light of the 
World (9 : 5) ; Lazarus is raised from the dead because 
he is the Resurrection and the Life (11 : 25). So, too, 
his other deeds are related to the heavenly world to 
which he belongs; e. g., he washes the disciples' feet, 
** knowing that he came forth from God and returned 
to God^' (13 : 3). 

(3) The Fulness of the Revelation. — In the synoptics 
Christ reveals himself as the Messiah; but whether this 
means more than that he is the one whom God has 
specially chosen and anointed with his spirit to bring 
in the Kingdom of God, is debatable. In John no 
ground is left for such debate. He plainly proclaims 
himself as existing before Abraham (8 : 58), as the 
Way, the Truth and the Life (14 : 6), as one with the 
Father (10 : 30). The Jews are ready to stone him for 
blasphemy because he makes himself God (10 : 33). 
No clearer, fuller revelation of his unique divine re- 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 129 

lationship to the Father could be demanded. The dis- 
ciple who comes to Jesus through accepting John's 
representation of him, must say with Thomas, "My 
Lord and my God" (20 : 28). 

Can these many differences between John and the 
synoptics be explained, and the two accounts be so 
harmonized that we may accept both as trustworthy ? 
Able critics answer no; and reject John as historically 
worthless. It is well to notice, in considering their de- 
cision, that most of them are likewise dubious about 
the trustworthiness of the synoptics, and are unwilling 
to accept without modification the picture of Christ 
there presented. From this we may infer that the 
real difficulty with John is not its difference from the 
synoptics, but its clearer presentation of the divinity 
of Christ, which they refuse to recognize even in the 
synoptics. Equally able critics, however, accept and 
defend John, finding the same divine Saviour of the 
world in it and in the synoptics. Their explanation 
of the differences between the two must now be con- 
sidered. 

Before we take up the solution of the Johannine 
problem offered by defenders of the Fourth Gospel, we 
should notice that, perhaps, the problem is not quite 
as difficult as some would make it appear. The dif- 
ferences between John and the synoptics are some- 
times exaggerated. Though the style of Christ's 



130 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

words in the synoptics is usually unlike that in John, 
yet there are passages in which it is identical; e. g., 
"All things have been delivered unto Me of My Father; 
and no one knoweth the Son save the Father, neither 
doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to 
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him " : this is from 
Matthew (11 : 27), yet nothing could be more like 
John. Concerning the difference in the teachings of 
Christ, the opinion of Wendt is valuable, not only 
because his book, " The Teaching of Jesus, " is a very 
able one, but because he approaches the subject 
as a hostile critic, refusing to grant apostolic author- 
ship for much of the narrative in the Fourth Gospel. 
Stalker summarizes Wendt's conclusions as follows: 
"St. John has a peculiar vocabulary; but its leading 
catchwords are simply equivalents of the leading catch- 
words of the synoptists; and the circle of Christ's 
teachings in John when laid above the circle found in 
the synoptists, corresponds with it point by point, al- 
though, of course, at some points St. John is more ex- 
pansive and goes deeper" ("Christology of Jesus," 
252). In regard, also, to the revelation of himself 
the difference may be less than it seems. The slow 
development which we trace in the synoptics is in the 
hearers and not in himself; for we believe that Christ 
was as fully aware of his Messianic nature at the 
beginning of his ministry as at the close. And the 
Gospel of John indicates just such slow development. 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 131 

Far on in the second year of his preaching the Jews 
come to him saying, " How long dost thou hold us in 
suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly" 
(10 : 24; c/. 7 : 40-41). Evidently the proclamation 
to them had not been as unmistakable as we might 
think. 

Nevertheless, serious diflBculties in the attempt to 
harmonize John with the synoptics remain and cannot 
be ignored. Two facts, however, are helpful because 
they throw light upon the character of the Fourth Gos- 
pel. The first is that its author was acquainted with 
the synoptic account, and intended his work to be 
supplementary to it. This is what early writers state; 
e. g., Clement of Alexandria, who wrote about A. D. 
200, says : " John, perceiving that what had reference 
to the body [i. e., the external facts] was clearly set 
forth in the other gospels, and being urged by bis friends 
and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual gos- 
pel" (Eusebius, 6 : 14 ). And this is what the book 
itself indicates at the very outset, where the early work 
of John the Baptist and his baptism of Jesus, and the 
persons who form the first band of disciples, are treated 
as well-known to its readers. With the exception of 
the early Judean ministry, which the synoptics omit, 
there is no attempt at a continuous narrative: typical 
scenes are given without their connection. The sec- 
ond fact is that the purpose of the book is unlike that of 
the synoptics. This we must consider more at length. 



132 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

The synoptics were written, as we have noted, 
mainly to preserve and spread the oral gospel. They 
are not attempts at biography, but precious memora- 
bilia which practical experiment had found most valu- 
able in making converts to the Christian faith or in 
fashioning the daily Christian life. The purpose of 
John is plainly stated at the close of the book (20 : 30) : 
" Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence 
of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but 
these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have 
life in his name." Why there was need to write such 
a book is evident. The church at first had no theory 
concerning the way in which the human and the divine 
were joined in Christ. It accepted him as the Son of 
God without seeking to explain the nature of that Son- 
ship. But before a great while there was forced upon 
it the problem over which men have pondered ever 
since, In what sense was Christ one with God — the 
Godman? And various theories were propounded 
that, without rejecting him as Saviour, diminished 
either his perfect humanity or his perfect divinity. 
The prologue of John (I : 1-18) has reference to these, 
and shows what the book wishes to prove, viz., that 
Jesus was God become flesh, dwelling among us with 
the evident glory of the Only Begotten from the Father, 
and that in him alone is spiritual life. The whole 
book is a sermon on this text. Its object is to supple- 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 133 

ment the synoptics by setting forth the divinity of Christ 
more plainly than they had done, and thus to furnish 
an answer to those within the church itself who were 
questioning whether Jesus was, in a full sense of the 
term, the Son of God. Indeed, the prologue to John 
seems an appropriate introduction rather to a theolog- 
ical discussion than to a biography. 

When we fairly recognize the supplementary and 
special character of the Fourth Gospel, its peculiarities 
cease to be remarkable. Consider first its difference 
from the synoptics in the details of the public ministry. 
There is no indication that the synoptists did not know 
of Jesus' work in Judea at the beginning, and of his 
visits to Jerusalem later on. Indeed, such a state- 
ment as his cry over Jerusalem, " How oft would I have 
gathered thy children" (Matt. 23 : 37), would be unin- 
telligible if the final Passover visit was the first one. 
Nor is it fair to infer from their failure to mention any 
Passover except the last that they supposed the min- 
istry to be limited to one year. Mark expressly states 
that the feeding of the five thousand took place in the 
time of green grass — the time of the Passover; and 
since he tells of a long ministry after that miracle, he 
cannot have supposed that it was in the springtime of 
the last Passover. 

The synoptists, as we have noted, do not give or pro- 
fess to give a complete record of Christ's words and 
deeds; nor do they attempt (though this is not entirely 



134 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

true of Luke) a chronological arrangement of their 
narratives. Why they omit all mention of the work in 
Judea and Jerusalem, except during Passion Week 
and possibly some isolated incidents such as the visit 
with Mary and Martha (Luke 10 : 38-42), we can only 
surmise. But that work was comparatively brief; it 
seemed a complete failure; and probably the synoptists 
or their sources saw in it nothing of special interest 
and importance — at least, nothing that should be re- 
lated in preference to other portions of the ministry. 

The writer of the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, 
saw in the Judean work much that suited his purpose 
exactly. He wished to set before his readers the di- 
vinity of Jesus; and, as we shall presently see, there 
was no place where Jesus proclaimed his divine nature 
and mission so clearly and boldly as at Jerusalem, " the 
theological centre of the nation," in the great feasts 
where representatives of the Jewish race were assem- 
bled from every quarter. 

It was natural, therefore, that incidents from the 
work in Judea should constitute the chief part of the 
Fourth Gospel. And, this being the case, it was in- 
evitable that the story should differ as to characters, 
incidents, and measure of success from that which the 
synoptists related. Any harmony of the gospels will 
show how the two narratives fit into each other. A 
discussion of special instances in which they seem at 
first sight to be contradictory would take too much 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 135 

time. The commentaries on John will suggest how 
these can be harmonized. Even the most difl&cult of 
all — the time of the Last Supper as related to the Pass- 
over — is simply explained, if we suppose that because 
of the great number of pilgrims coming to the Pass- 
over, it was allowable — indeed, would seem to be neces- 
sary — for some to sacrifice and eat the Passover lamb 
in advance of the regular time, and that Jesus was one 
of those who thus anticipated the regular day and hour 
in eating the Passover meal. 

In regard to the differences in the form of the teach- 
ings of Christ, I suppose we must agree that the style 
and keywords are those of John rather than of Jesus. 
And the natural conclusion is that though John gives 
us the thought of Jesus, he clothes it in his own words. 
In one way that is true of all four gospels. They are 
written in Greek; but Jesus spoke in Aramaic — the 
common language of the people of Palestine; so we 
do not have his original words when we read the Greek 
gospels any more than we do when we read our Eng- 
lish revised version; in both cases we are using a 
translation. The cry on the cross, "Eli, Eli, lama 
sabachthani," the command to Jairus's daughter, 
"Talitha cumi," are exact reproductions of Christ's 
own words; but such examples are rare. Moreover, 
in the long discourses in which John's gospel abounds, 
we probably have not simply a translation of Christ's 
words, but a summary of them without any attempt 



136 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

to reproduce their exact form. True, they are put on 
Jesus' lips in what rhetorically is called direct dis- 
course. But we must remember that the Hebrew 
language never developed indirect discourse, and used 
the first person just as much when giving only the gen- 
eral meaning of a speaker as when giving his precise 
words. (See Robertson, "Early Religion of Israel," 
2 : 176.) So it would seem perfectly proper to a 
man who was more familiar with Hebrew than w^ith 
Greek, to write, e. g., " Jesus said * I am the Bread 
of Life,'" where another writer would express it, 
"Jesus said that he was the Bread of Life." We 
ought not to accuse John of putting into Christ's 
mouth words that he never spoke, for that is something 
John had no intention of doing. Nor ought we to be 
troubled if we have not the precise words of Jesus. If 
we had them, they would be unintelligible except to 
scholars who could read Aramaic; and most of us 
would still have to depend upon the words of a trans- 
lation. Enough if we possess in Greek or English the 
exact teachings of Jesus, though the words are those 
of John or of English translators. 

How, then, about the teachings themselves? 
Granting that Wendt is right when he says that they 
cover exactly the same circle of truth as those in the 
synoptics, why are they so much deeper and more 
spiritual in John ? Several facts may explain this. 

First, the synoptics and John were for different 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 137 

readers. The synoptics, as we have seen, are drawn 
from sources that were purely evangelistic — like Peter's 
oral gospel, or that were for the guidance and cheer of 
beginners in the Christian way — like Matthew's Logia. 
Evidently in such sources there would be little place 
for the deeper things of Christ. An unconverted audi- 
ence would not be interested in these deeper things; 
and those who had advanced but a little way in the 
Christian life would not profit by them. But John 
was written for maturer Christians — for those who al- 
ready were pondering such subjects as the union of 
the human and the divine in Christ; evidently such 
readers were ready to profit by a teaching that set forth 
the deepest truths. Even in the present day, the 
Fourth Gospel appeals rather to the Christian of ripe 
experience and full spiritual development than to the 
beginner or the unbeliever. 

Second, the apostle John — if the Fourth Gospel 
comes directly or indirectly from him — may have been 
more receptive of deep truths than the other apostles. 
The teachings of Jesus varied according to the char- 
acter of his hearers, being sometimes hidden in para- 
bles and sometimes open (John 16 : 29), now dwelling 
on the simple truths and duties of daily life, and again 
interpreting the mysteries of the Kingdom of God 
(Mark 4 : 11). He spake to the people and to his own 
intimate disciples as they were able to hear (Mark 
4 : 33, John 16 : 12). This was natural, and is ex- 



138 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

actly what all wise teachers do. The difference in 
the teachings of Jesus would be no greater than that 
between a sermon by a modern preacher to an audience 
gathered from the streets, and a quiet talk by the same 
preacher to his own church people at a Lenten service. 
Now, it is certain that Jesus gave his deepest teachings 
to the little band of apostles; and it is probable that 
John was by nature more appreciative of these teach- 
ings than were the others. He was the nephew of Mary 
who pondered such things in her heart (Luke 2 : 19, 
51); when he became a disciple he was, so we suppose, 
scarcely more than a lad, and correspondingly recep- 
tive: and he was the disciple whom Jesus loved, and 
who leaned upon his bosom. If any gospel was to 
reveal the heart of Christ, it would be one prepared by 
such an apostle. And the difference between the 
teachings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel and in the 
synoptics is explained in part by the difference be- 
tween the biographers. 

Third, the deeper meaning in Jesus' teachings may 
have become evident to John in later years. John 
wrote his gospel long after the others and in his old 
age. For years he has been meditating upon the 
teachings of Jesus, and interpreting them according 
to his own deepening spiritual experience. Christ's 
promise of the Comforter who should teach his dis- 
ciples all things and bring all things to their remem- 
brance has been fulfilled to John. So in the words of 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 139 

Jesus he sees meanings that he failed to see at first; 
they have grown more clear and wonderful as the years 
have gone by. How natural, then, that as he writes 
them down, he should try to give their full significance 
as it now appears to his mind illumined by the Holy 
Ghost. Indeed, Browning, in his " Death in the Des- 
ert" (concerning which Sanday says, " As an imagina- 
tive reproduction of the circumstances and frame of 
mind in which the gospel was written, it is the best that 
I know"), makes the aged apostle declare that this was 
the main reason why he wrote: 

" Since much that at the first, in deed and word, 
Lay simply and sufficiently exposed, 
Had grown (or else my soul was grown to match, — 
Fed through such years, familiar with such light. 
Guarded and guided still to see and speak) 
Of new significance and fresh result; 
What first were guessed as points, I now knew stars 
And named them in the gospel I have writ." 

The third group of differences — those found in 
Christ's self-revelation — may be accounted for along 
the lines already indicated. Whether his divine nature 
and Messianic mission were known to Jesus before his 
baptism is a question open to debate: but few, except 
those who reject the story of the baptism, can doubt 
that from the time of the baptism he had full knowl- 
edge of his nature and work. His disclosure of that 
knowledge to others would depend upon their con- 
dition. If their idea of the Messiah was a misleading 



140 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

one, the statement "I am He" would be harmful 
rather than helpful. For example, in Galilee the peo- 
ple seem to have been expecting a Messiah who would 
gratify their longings for material prosperity, idleness, 
and self-indulgence; the five thousand whom he fed 
one springtime afternoon were quick to decide that 
this was a king after their heart's desire; and even the 
twelve sympathized with them. Accordingly, the 
work in Galilee had to be restricted to teaching the true 
nature of the Kingdom of God; not until the Galileans 
should grasp that truth — and they never did — could 
he proclaim himself the king. On the other hand, 
the Samaritans, who drew their idea of the Messiah 
wholly from the Pentateuch, were looking for a teacher 
like Moses (Deut. 18 : 15, John 4 : 25), who should 
lead them into all truth; and there was no reason why 
Jesus should not say plainly to the woman at the well, 
"I that speak unto thee am he" (John 4 : 26). 

The degree, then, to which Jesus would reveal him- 
self to the Judeans and especially to the Sanhedrin, 
w^ho controlled all Judean thought, would depend up- 
on their preparation for that revelation. Evidently 
they were not ready toreceive such a Messiah as Jesus; 
but there seems to have been no preliminary work of 
preparation lacking to make them ready. The priests 
who had turned the temple into a robber's den needed 
no further instruction before they should be confronted 
with the question whether they would accept one who 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 141 

would treat It as the Father's house. The rabbis who 
claimed the authority that came from professing to sit 
in Moses' seat knew well enough that when the Mes- 
siah appeared their proud prerogative must be sur- 
rendered. And the Pharisees, whose sweet sense of 
self-righteousness was fostered by emphasis of every 
jot and tittle of the law, looked forward to a king 
who should be the new lawgiver. There was no need 
to wait for further preparation — except, indeed, the 
preparation of repentance which the Baptist preached 
— before Jesus should proclaim his Messiahship to the 
Judeans. 

The work in Judea began with the cleansing of the 
temple — an act that called immediate attention to the 
claims of Jesus, and challenged the authorities to do 
their duty as leaders of the people by passing upon 
those claims. And at every subsequent visit to the 
home of the Sanhedrin there was a fresh challenge, in 
the form of further Messianic work or teachings. Very 
probably Jesus, from the beginning, had little hope that 
the Sanhedrin would accept him; but they must not be 
left in ignorance of what he was and what he sought 
from them. When they at last, in the name of the 
nation, should pronounce him an impostor worthy of 
death, their act must be without the excuse that he had 
not clearly set before them his credentials. The dif- 
ference, then, between his self-revelation, here and 
elsewhere, is natural. 



142 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

And yet there are various indications in this same 
Gospel of John that the revelation was not as unmis- 
takable as at first we might suppose. For example, 
Nicodemus, despite the cleansing of the temple, sees 
in Jesus only a teacher come from God. And far 
along in the ministry, as we have noted, the Jews 
(by which term John designates the leaders at Jeru- 
salem) come round about him with the question, 
'*How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou 
art the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10 : 24). Here, 
again, we must recognize that the Fourth Gospel is not 
a biography, but an interpretation. John sets forth 
the inner meaning which lies beneath the outward act. 
He shows us Jesus, not as the Jews actually saw him, 
but as they might have seen, had they in spirit been 
prepared to see. For example, when the Baptist, 
pointing out Jesus, says "Behold the Lamb of God," 
— a term taken from Isaiah 53 : 7 — John puts into 
that term its fulness of meaning by adding "that 
taketh away the sin of the world" (1 : 29). Or, again, 
in the enigmatical words of Jesus, "Destroy this tem- 
ple, and in three days I will raise it up" (2 : 19) — 
whose surface meaning seems to have been the one 
indicated by Mark (14 : 57) — John finds a deeper 
meaning revealed by meditation upon his death and 
resurrection. The conversation with Nicodemus illus- 
trates clearly the way in which, when John reports 
the teachings of Jesus, " reminiscence deepens uncon- 



THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM 143 

sciously into reflection," till we can hardly tell where 
he ceases to be the reporter and becomes the expositor. 
With such treatment of the ministry of Jesus there can 
be little progress in his self-revelation, because the at- 
tempt is to show, not the development of faith in his 
disciples, but the grounds for their faith; and these 
existed unchanged from the beginning. 

Such are the lines along which those who accept the 
Fourth Gospel as trustworthy arrive at a solution of 
the Johannine problem. To many critics the solu- 
tion seems unsatisfactory; and in their opinion the 
difference between the picture of Jesus in John and 
in the synoptics arises from the fact that John is al- 
most wholly unhistorical — a product of theological 
speculation at the close of the first century. It is well 
to notice, however, that usually the factor most influ- 
ential in shaping this opinion is the conclusion, reached 
in advance, that the main thesis of John — the divin- 
ity of Jesus — cannot be accepted. Certainly many 
of the arguments used by hostile critics have little 
weight apart from such a decision. Illingworth points 
this out forcibly in one instance: "An eminent critic 
[Holtzmann, *Life of Jesus,' 40; see also Jiilicher, 
* Introduction to New Testament,' 421], after con- 
trasting the Sermon on the Mount with a passage in 
one of the Johannine discourses, says, * It is a psycho- 
logical impossibility that these two things should have 
proceeded from the same person.' This has all the air 



144 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

of a scientific statement; but mark what the assertion 
involves — the adequate capacity of the critic to judge 
what was or was not possible in another person's mode 
of thought and speech. Now we should hardly be 
disposed to concede such a degree of insight to the 
ablest of critics in a case where the person criticised 
was a man of supreme genius like Plato or Shake- 
speare or St. Paul; for it is the characteristic of such 
men to baffle ordinary expectation, and scatter the 
prosaic tests of weight and measure to the winds. 
But would any man, with the faintest reputation for 
sanity to maintain, claim this insight if he believed 
the person in question to be God incarnate, or even 
possibly to be God incarnate ? Obviously not. It is 
plain, therefore, that the incarnation had been ruled 
out of court before the assertion in question was 
made" ('^Doctrine of the Trinity," 25). 

After all, the strongest proof that the Jesus of the 
synoptics is the same as the Jesus of John, lies in the 
fact that the Christian Church has never been conscious 
of any real difference. Knowing him by personal ex- 
perience, and convinced of his divinity by proofs far 
stronger than any fragmentary record of what he did 
and said almost nineteen hundred years ago, it has 
studied that record in the first three gospels and again 
in John, and found throughout them all, the same 
elder brother, Saviour and Son of God, whom to know 
is life everlasting. 



CHAPTER X 
CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 

The Four Gospels give four different pictures of 
Jesus. The early church recognized this and sym- 
bolized the four by the four living creatures standing 
around the throne of God in the apocalyptic vision 
(Rev. 4:7; cj. Ezek. 1 : 10), viz.t the man, the lion, 
the ox, the eagle. There was some disagreement about 
the assignment of these symbols, though usually Mat- 
thew was the man because it pictures Jesus as the Son 
of David, the Messiah; Mark was the lion because it 
pictures him as the mighty miracle- wor ker ; Luke was 
the ox because it shows him as the patient, self-sacrific- 
ing Saviour; and John was the eagle because in it he 
is most plainly revealed as the sublime Son of God. 

Unless the gospels differ entirely from all other 
biographies, they must have each its own characteris- 
tics which might properly be symbolized. Even when 
two authors have equal opportunity to gain a knowledge 
of their subject, and equal ability to state it, there will 
be a difference in their books arising from tempera- 
ment. Things that appeal to the one and are put in 

the foreground, may be almost ignored by the other 

145 



146 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

because they do not appeal to him. From what we 
know of Peter and John — two apostles so unlike in 
temperament — we cannot expect that the Gospel of 
Mark, which is practically Peter's story of Jesus, will 
contain the same incidents or give the same emphasis 
as the Gospel of John. Then, again, the same material 
may be treated very differently by a wTiter who has one 
purpose in writing or one audience in mind, and an- 
other TVTiter who has a different purpose or audience. 
Matthew wrote for the Hebrews and to set forth Jesus 
as the Messiah; Luke wrote for the Gentiles and to set 
forth Jesus as the Saviour of all men: evidently their 
two books will not give the same picture of Jesus. 
Each gospel, therefore, must differ from the others: 
and its account of Jesus must be interpreted in the 
light of its authorship before it can convey its full 
meaning. 

All this is familiar to us in the case of other biogra- 
phies, but we sometimes forget it in the case of the 
gospels. Nevertheless it is just as important to dis- 
cover and bear in mind individual characteristics when 
we study the Four Gospels as when we study any other 
books of history. Only in this way can we fully ap- 
preciate the record. We must learn where to put the 
emphasis in our reading, and how to read between the 
lines. As we note concerning photographs that this 
was a snapshot and this a careful pose, or that for this 
the negative was not retouched, while for this the wrin- 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 147 

kles and blemishes were rubbed out; and after thus 
valuing our photographs decide about the actual ap- 
pearance of the person they portray; in like manner we 
must note the character of the four pictures of Jesus 
before we can determine what manner of person he 
was. 

The foregoing statements are not equivalent to say- 
ing that the gospels are untrustworthy, but only that, 
like all biographies, they are limited by the limitations 
of their authors or of those from whom the material 
was gained. None knew Jesus thoroughly, not even 
the disciple who leaned upon his breast; and no evan- 
gelist could write about him without personal bias and 
purposes that would shape his narrative. 

Moreover, when we know and bear in mind the 
characteristics of a gospel, we not only read it with new 
intelligence, but often we find new grounds for trusting 
its statements. For example, in Luke — as we shall 
presently notice — there are plain indications that its 
author looked upon the twelve with much reverence, 
and disliked to state anything to their discredit; any 
record, therefore, of their shortcomings and failures 
in Luke (and there are many such) is specially impres- 
sive and credible, since we are sure Luke would have 
omitted it could he have found good excuse for so do- 
ing. Again, Matthew is so eager to point out fulfil- 
ment of prophecy in Jesus^ life that sometimes he seems 
to strain the prophecy in order to make it foretell the 



148 IXTRODUCTIOX TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

particular event; but the very far-fetchedness of his ful- 
filments shows how careful he was to treat his facts 
honestly. The temptation to change them, more or less, 
in order to make them meet the prophecy, was evidently 
great, yet he stoutly resisted it. 

Let us look, then, at the four evangelists and their 
four pictures of Christ, considering specially those facts 
that reveal the characteristics of each gospel. 

Matthew 

Very little is known of Matthew the apostle except 
the fact that he was a collector of customs at Caper- 
naum, and the circumstances of his call to follow Jesus. 
In each list of the apostles he stands seventh or eighth, 
which gives a hint of the estimate put upon his ability 
by the evangelists. The uniform tradition is that he was 
the author of the First Gospel, and that he wrote it in 
Hebrew, by which probably is meant Aramaic. Some 
truth must lie behind this tradition; for if the apostolic 
authorship has been purely an invention to give author- 
ity to the gospel, a more important apostle would have 
been selected. But the author of this gospel has incor- 
porated in it nearly the whole of Mark: and, as W. C. 
Allen observes, "It is indeed not rmpossible, but it is 
very improbable, that an apostle should rely upon the 
work of another for the entire framework of his narra- 
tive." Nor could the First Gospel have been written 
in Hebrew, because it reproduces the Greek phraseol- 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 149 

ogy of Mark often almost exactly. The origin of the 
tradition is most simply explained by supposing that 
Matthew did write in Hebrew or Aramaic some book 
which was used by the author of the First Gospel as 
the basis of his work: and for this reason the whole 
compilation was called the Gospel According to Mat- 
thew. This has already been pointed out in discus- 
sing the synoptic problem. 

Though the author of the First Gospel must remain 
unknown, the strongly Hebraic character of his book 
makes it evident that he was a Jew; while the broad 
view he takes of the mission of Christ — beginning his 
story with the visit of the Gentile magi to the young 
child and ending with the commission of the apostles 
to make disciples of all nations — both found only in this 
gospel — would indicate that he had a wider horizon 
than most Jews who lived in Palestine. He has, as 
Moffatt notes, given an unconscious portrayal of him- 
self in the saying of Jesus, recorded in his gospel alone, 
*' Every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the 
kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is a house- 
holder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things 
new and old" (13 : 52). Where his home was, of 
course, we cannot know. A favorite guess is Southern 
Syria — say Phoenicia — in which were many Jewish 
Christians. 

That Matthew (to use the established name for the 
book) was written primarily for Jews is unmistakable. 



150 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

It contains more than forty quotations from the Old 
Testament: it traces the genealogy of Christ back to 
Abraham: it takes special pains to point out the ful- 
filment of prophecy: it is the only gospel to record 
Jesus' declaration that the law is permanent (5 : 17- 
19); and, indeed, its whole presentation of Jesus is as 
the Jewish Messiah. Most fittingly it is placed as the 
beginning of the New Testament, for it forms a natural 
transition from the messages of the Old Testament 
prophets. The Jewish readers, however, for whom 
Matthew was written, must have lived outside of Pal- 
estine; otherwise there would have been no need to fol- 
low Mark in translating Aramaic words (27 : 33, 46) 
and in stating a custom of the Passover (27 : 15), or a 
Sadducean belief (22 : 23). 

It is generally held that the book was written not far 
from the year A. D. 70; and, if so, the character of the 
times explains the purpose of the author. In that mad 
revolt against Rome, which ended with the destruction 
of Jerusalem, the patriotism of the Jews became a 
frenzy; and many Jewish Christians turned back from 
Christ to the national religion, or wavered in their be- 
lief that he was really the promised Messiah. When 
Jerusalem fell, those who remained steadfast had to un- 
dergo another testing of their faith, because this sore 
calamity was so contrary to all their expectations of 
the Messianic kingdom. During these trying hours, 
when Jewish Christians, as they thought about Jesus, 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 151 

were repeating the question which John the Baptist in 
an hour of trial once asked, ** Art thou He that cometh 
or look we for another ? " the Gospel of Matthew was 
written to reassure them by telling the life of Jesus in 
such a way as to answer that question once more. The 
book is a narrative; but, as Dr. Burton has shown 
("Introduction to the Gospels" 12/.), it is a narrative 
with an argumentative purpose. What Matthew seeks 
to prove, so as to establish the faith of the perplexed 
and wavering Jewish Christian, may be summed up 
under four heads: 

First, Jesus was the long expected Messiah. This 
is proved by pointing out how exactly and minutely 
the Old Testament Messianic prophecies were ful- 
filled in his birth, life, and death. Such proof would 
be to Jews most convincing, and was repeatedly used 
by the apostles when they preached to Jewish audi- 
ences, beginning with Peter's sermon at Pentecost. It 
seems, as we have already said, that, in his eagerness to 
find fulfilments of prophecy, Matthew sometimes gets 
far away from the literal sense of the Old Testament 
passages; e. g., how can the statement that God called 
Israel out of Egypt (Hos. 11 : 1) be a prophecy that 
the infant Jesus should be brought back from that 
same land ? Is the prediction that Ramah would mourn 
over its people carried away to Babylon (Jer. 31 : 15) 
in any sense fulfilled by the sorrow of Bethlehem over 
the babes murdered by Herod ? And who can say cer- 



152 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

tainly what prophecy is fulfilled in the fact that Jesus, 
because he dwelt in Nazareth, was called a Nazarene ? 
But if these fulfilments seem far-fetched, then, evi- 
dently, the writer was not — as some critics have sup- 
posed — inventing incidents to fit the prophecies; 
rather he was hunting hard to find prophecies that 
would fit the incidents. 

Second, the kingdom of Jesus was the true Mes- 
sianic kingdom. This fact is set forth, among other 
ways, by four groups of Jesus' own sayings, viz.: 
(5-8) the Sermon on the Mount, which is like an 
inaugural proclamation stating who are the subjects, 
and what are the laws, the life, etc., of the kingdom; 
(10) the instructions to the apostles as to how they are 
to proclaim the kingdom; (18) the conduct of members 
of the kingdom to each other; (24-25) the final con- 
summation of the kingdom. It is noteworthy that the 
transition from each of these groups to the narrative 
is by practically the same formula, " And it came to pass 
when Jesus had finished these words," which some 
think to be an indication by the evangelist that all the 
groups were taken from the same collection of sayings, 
i. e., that they formed a part, or Wendt would say the 
whole, of the so-called Logia or Quelle. 

Third, Jesus offered the kingdom to his own nation ; 
but, despite his warnings, they refused it, and put him 
to death. In no other gospel is there such a clear pict- 
ure of the attitude of the Jews toward Jesus, or such 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 153 

a full answer to the objections with which they sought 
to justify their attitude. Nor have we elsewhere such 
utterances of warning and denunciation. The most 
emphatic condemnation of the Pharisees (23), and the 
clearest predictions of the doom of the nation (8:11- 
12, 21 : 43) are peculiar to Matthew. 

Fourth, because the Jews rejected their Messiah they 
have lost their place in his kingdom; and it is now 
open to all nations. Many of the parables peculiar to 
Matthew emphasize the exclusion of unworthy Jews 
from the kingdom, e. g., plants rooted up (15 : 13), 
tares burned (13 : 30), bad fish cast away (13 : 48), 
foolish virgins shut out (25 : 11), the guest without a 
wedding garment cast out (22 : 13). And this gos- 
pel alone gives the plain statement of Christ, "The 
Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and 
given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" 
(21 : 43). Henceforth, the field is the world (13 : 38), 
and the laborers in it are to make disciples of all na- 
tions (28 : 19). ''The author's aim is by no means 
attained when he has advanced evidence that Jesus is 
the Messiah. He reaches his goal only when, with this 
as the first step of his argument, he has shown that 
Jesus the Messiah founded a kingdom of universal 
scope, abolishing all Jewish limitations" (Burton). 

When the gospels were being brought together in one 
manuscript, Matthew was generally supposed to have 
been written first, and so it was placed first in the col- 



154 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

lection. This position, which it has held ever since, 
has increased its importance. Readers of the gospels 
usually begin with Matthew, and are more familiar 
with it than with the other gospels. Its abundance 
of material, its attractive style and its convenient 
arrangement for memorizing, secure its popularity. 
Jiilicher pronounces it, "the principal gospel of 
Christendom, the gospel by which the picture of Jesus 
has been engraved on all our minds . . . the most 
important book ever written." 

Mark 

If, as early tradition states and the majority of 
modern scholars agree, the author of this gospel w^as 
the John Mark of Acts, who is usually identified with 
the Mark of the Epistles, we know considerable about 
him. He was a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4 : 10), and 
probably like him a Levite. Early writers call him 
"the malmed-fingered " ; if this indicates a physical 
defect, he would not be allowed to serve in the temple. 
His home was in Jerusalem, and was evidently one of 
some wealth (Acts 12 : 12-13). He may have known 
Jesus, despite the statement of Papias that he had 
neither heard nor accompanied him; indeed, there is 
ground for supposing that the Last Supper was in his 
house, and that he himself, roused from sleep by the 
noise of soldiers outside, was the "certain young man" 
who followed the armed band to Gethsemane. The 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 155 

incident is given only in Mark (14 : 51-2), and there 
seems no reason for its narration except personal in- 
terest. 

While at times he worked with Barnabas and Paul 
(Acts 12 : 25; 15 : 39, Col. 4 : 10), he was most closely 
associated with Peter, who calls him " my son" (I Peter 
5 : 13). His boyhood in Jerusalem had probably given 
him a knowledge of Greek and Latin, which were 
sealed tongues to the Galilean fishermen; so Papias 
may be right when he says that Mark acted as inter- 
preter for Peter. In general he seems to have been a 
good assistant rather than a leader — not a prophet 
or teacher, but "useful for ministering" (II Timothy 
4:11). All this agrees with the impression as to its 
author which we gain from the gospel itself, viz.: " that 
he was a born Jew, familiar with the circle of the original 
apostles, and especially interested in Peter, but also a 
much-travelled person, rejoicing in the fact that the 
gospel was to be preached to all nations" (Jiilicher). 

According to Papias, as we have seen, Mark's story 
of Jesus is largely that which Peter used to tell. This 
seems probable. There certainly are abundant marks 
of an eye-witness — graphic touches that are given sim- 
ply because the scene remains in memory (e. g., 4 : 38; 
5:5; 6 : 39; 10 : 32, 50); and they are what Peter 
might have seen. Also, in the incidents where Peter, 
James, and John were the only apostles present (5 : 37^. ; 
14 : 33^.), as well as in the story of Peter's denial 



156 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

(14 : 54, 66-72), there are details not found in the 
other gospels. At the same time some incidents are 
omitted which Peter from modesty or shame would not 
narrate, e. g., the walking on the water, the promise 
about the rock and keys, the stater in the fish's mouth, 
and the question about forgiving a brother (all told in 
Matthew 14 : 24:jf.; 17 : 4; 16 : 18/.; 18 : 21/.); also 
the miraculous draught of fishes and the sifting by 
Satan (both told in Luke 5 : 1/.; 22 : 31). The limits 
of the story, too, are those laid down by Peter when, at 
the choice of Matthias, he said an apostle must be a 
witness, ''beginning from the baptism of John until 
the day he was received up from us" (Acts 1 : 20). 

Doubtless Peter was not the only source of informa- 
tion. The book falls naturally into two main divisions 
viz.: the Galilean ministry (chaps. 1-9) and the final 
days in Jerusalem (chaps. 11-16), connected by a brief 
account of the Perean ministry (chap. 10). The sec- 
ond main division is much the fuller, and has more of 
Jesus' sayings. One part of it (chap. 13) seems to 
have been taken from a written source; and Mark's 
residence in Jerusalem would acquaint him with what 
Jesus said and did there. 

The Gospel of Mark evidently was written for 
Gentiles rather than for Jews. There are no quota- 
tions from the Old Testament except in conversations 
and in the opening verses (1 : 2-3). Jewish customs, 
etc., are explained (7 : 2-4; 12 : 18; 13 : 3; 14 : 12; 



CHARACTERISTICS OP EACH GOSPEL 157 

15 : 42). And though he loves to quote the Aramaic 
words of Christ, he always translates them (3 : 17; 
5 : 41; 7 : 11, 34; 14 : 36; 15 : 34). In Christ's state- 
ment that the temple should be a house of prayer 
Mark alone has the words " for all the nations," thus 
putting the Gentile side by side with the Jew (11 : 17). 
Whether the Gentile world for which Mark wrote 
was, in particular, the Roman world, is not so evident; 
but there are indications that this was the fact, e. g.y 
Jewish money is given its Roman equivalent (12 : 42), 
Latin words are sometimes used (6 : 27; 15 : 39, 44), 
and the teaching about divorce recognizes the wife's 
putting away her husband, which was a Roman but 
not a Jewish practice (10 : 12). Most scholars accept 
as true the tradition that Peter spent his last days in 
Rome; then Mark may have written his gospel there, 
as various early writers declare. The fact that Rufus 
and Alexander were sons of Simon of Cyrene (15 : 21), 
which Mark learned through his residence in Jeru- 
salem, may have been mentioned by him because he 
knew them personally, or possibly because Rufus was 
known to the Roman Christians (Rom. 16 : 13): the 
other synoptists saw no reason for repeating the state- 
ment. We have already noticed when discussing 
dates that this gospel seems to have been written before 
A. D. 70; but whether Peter was still living, as Clement 
of Alexandria says, or whether both he and Paul were 
dead, as Irenseus aflSrms, we cannot tell. 



158 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

If we look at Mark as largely reproducing the story 
Peter was accustomed to tell those who asked him 
about Jesus — a story of which we have the outline in 
the report of what Peter said to Cornelius, Acts 10 : 37- 
42 — and as also representing the oral gospel which those 
who were scattered abroad after the death of Stephen 
told when they went about preaching the Word (Acts 
8 : 4), we shall see the explanation of its characteristics. 
" The story is told as it would be in conversation : dia- 
logue plays a large part in it, and the utterances of 
speakers are introduced in the plainest way and gen- 
erally by *he saith' and ' they say' with no further dis- 
tinction of the interlocutors" (Robinson, "Study of the 
Gospels," 40). It is a plain story, such as an unlettered 
man would tell, with a use of colloquial terms and a 
lack of literary finish, which led even the writers of 
Matthew and Luke to make some changes when they 
incorporated the gospel in their own books. "There 
is something fresh and strong and primitive about the 
whole presentation, particularly in its very awkward- 
nesses." 

It is an unbiased story, setting forth the facts 
concretely without theological speculations or senti- 
mental touches — a story possible only in those earliest 
days when the apostles felt that their great work was 
simply to be faithful witnesses to what they had seen 
and heard. While the divinity of Christ is clearly set 
forth, his humanity is made equally evident: indeed, 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 159 

some of Mark's statements are omitted or toned down 
in the other gospels, apparently for fear that such plain 
revelations of human limitations might be stumbling 
blocks in the way of accepting the divinity of Jesus. 
For example, that he was a carpenter himself as well as 
a carpenter's son (6 : 3), that at one stage of his minr 
istry his friends thought him insane (3 : 21), that in 
opening the eyes of a blind man he had to proceed by 
stages (8 : 22-26), and that in curing the deaf and 
tongue-tied man he put forth prolonged effort (7 : 32- 
37): these facts are omitted by Matthew and Luke; 
and while Mark says that at Nazareth " He could do 
no mighty work save that he laid his hands upon a few 
sick people and healed them" (6 : 5), Matthew shades 
down this statement of his inability into " He did not 
many mighty works there" (13 : 58). 

It is an evangelist's story, arranged to bring out 
gradually the disclosure of Christ's divine claims, em- 
phasizing his miracles as proofs of divinity, and giving 
large space to the final scenes in Jerusalem — just such 
a story as would hold the attention and touch the heart 
of an audience not yet won to faith, and make them 
confess, as did the centurion beside the cross, "Truly 
this man was the Son of God" (15 : 39). While fre- 
quent mention is made of the fact that Jesus taught, 
very few of his teachings are given: what he was, as 
proved by what he did and suffered, is the great lesson 
of the book. 



160 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

In reading this story we come nearest to seeing 
Jesus as the men of his day saw him. We have, not 
a portrait carefully painted to show the inner nature, 
as in the Fourth Gospel, nor even a photograph with 
certain lines softened or erased, as in the other two 
synoptics: we have in Mark a photograph printed from 
a negative as yet untouched. Whether such a picture 
is really more true and satisfying may, perhaps, be 
questioned; but its strict literalness makes it most 
valuable. And whereas Mark formerly was the least 
prized of all the gospels, because it contained so little 
not found in the others, to-day it receives special at- 
tention as not only the most primitive but also the 
most fresh and vivid and objective of them all. 

Luke 

The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are by 
the same author. This is undisputed, and is evi- 
denced not only by the opening ver^e of Acts, but also 
aad more strongly by vocabulary, style, and arrange- 
ment, which are the same in both books. Luke, the 
companion of Paul, was probably the author. Such 
was the early and uniform tradition, and since Luke 
was by no means a prominent character in the apostolic 
age, there seems to be no reason why the tradition 
should have arisen unless it was based on fact. More- 
over, certain passages in Acts, written in the first person 
plural, are unquestionably by an eye-witness; and the 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 161 

argument is strong that this eye-witness was Luke, 
and that these passages are by the same person who 
wrote the rest of the book. We know that Luke was 
a Gentile physician (Col. 4 : 14), and we note his 
trained use of medical terms, and the fact that he alone 
records Jesus' use of saying, "Physician, heal thyself" 
(4 : 23). His gospel shows literary finish, and an 
historical sense much beyond the other gospels, as 
might be expected from a man of broader educa- 
tion. 

His sources of information are various. He knows 
about written records (1 : 1-4), and — as we have seen 
— made use of Mark's gospel (whose author he knew 
personally, Phile. 24) and of the Logia. Probably his 
source for the story of the infancy was a written one — 
the style indicates this — and he may have used other 
similar sources. Then he may have learned much 
from Paul; for there are plain indications that Paul, 
though he never met Jesus during his ministry, was 
well acquainted with the facts of that ministry {e. g., 
Acts 20 : 35; I Cor. 15 : 1-8; 9 : 14). Also, in his 
travels with Paul he must have met many early dis- 
ciples (e. g., Philip the evangelist at Csesarea, Acts 
21:8) who could give him first-hand information 
about Jesus. We notice that he seems to have had 
special information about the court of Herod (3 : 1, 19; 
8 : 3; 9 : 7-9; 13 : 31; 23 : 7-12) gained, perhaps, 
from Manaen (Acts 13 : 1) or from Joanna (8:3). 



162 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

In all, more than one-half of his gospel is not found in 
the other synoptics. 

His two books are dedicated to Theophilus, whom 
some suppose to be any "Lover of God," but who 
was probably a real person — a Roman of rank (so the 
title "most excellent" would indicate: cf. Acts 24 : 3; 
26 : 25; 23 : 26). Of course, he intended them for 
others besides Theophilus, and many things indicate 
that the readers he had in mind were Gentiles and 
especially Romans. He substitutes Gentile terms for 
Jewish — e. g., master or teacher for rabbi, the skull 
for Golgotha (23 : 33), zealot for Cananaean (6 : 16); 
he tells of "the feast of unleavened bread which is 
called the Passover" (22 : 1); he explains that Caper- 
naum is a city of Galilee (4:31) and that Arimathea is 
a city of the Jews (23 : 51); he calls the little sheet of 
water in Galilee a lake and not a sea; he even states 
that the Mount of Olives is nigh unto Jerusalem (Acts 
1 : 12). On the other hand, he takes for granted that 
his readers know just where the Market of Appius and 
the Three Taverns are, and so will understand how far 
out from Rome the brethren came to meet Paul (Acts 
28 : 15). 

Luke plainly states the purpose of his writing: it is 
that Theophilus may know that the Christian faith, 
which he has embraced, is founded on facts that can- 
not be shaken (1 : 4). These facts are not alone those 
set forth in his gospel: the Book of Acts is a continua- 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 163 

tion of them: and there is reason to think that Luke 
intended to write still another book — alas! that it was 
left unwritten — carrying on further the story of the 
work of Christ as it was wrought through his apostles. 
Other writers already have recorded some of these facts; 
but it seems to Luke that, having special opportunities 
for investigation and giving special care to his task, 
he can improve upon their work (1 : 3). He writes, 
therefore, as an historian, and Dr. Ramsay, who is 
specially qualified to pronounce upon Luke*s other 
book. Acts, declares that for trustworthiness, skill in 
arranging his material, and sympathetic historical in- 
sight, he should be reckoned " among the historians of 
the first rank." He writes, also, as a literary artist — 
showing this not only in his command of Greek and 
his versatile style, but still more in his artistic treatment 
of each subject, his ''rare combination of descriptive 
power with simplicity and dignity," and his ''insight 
into the lights and shadows of character, and the con- 
flict between spiritual forces " (Plummer). 

Prompted by his historical instinct, Luke tries to 
arrange his material in chronological order. He takes 
from the Logia practically the same extracts as those in 
Matthew; but instead of giving them in a few large 
collections, he breaks them up and puts them, so far 
as possible, in their original setting. In his use of 
Mark he follows Mark's order very closely in the first 
part; even as Matthew does in the last part. But 



164 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

Luke has a long passage (9 : 51-18 : 14) inserted 
into Mark's narrative and consisting largely of matter 
peculiar to himself. The indications of time for the 
events in this passage are few and vague, and the in- 
cidents seem to be gathered from various periods of 
Jesus' ministry. Where to place them is a difficult 
problem, and gives rise to the chief disagreements be- 
tween various harmonies of the gospels or chronol- 
ogies of the life of Christ. Possibly Luke himself did 
not know just where to put them, and threw them to- 
gether as disconnected stories he had gathered from 
vp.rious sources; indeed, some critics would call this 
portion of his gospel "Luke's scrap-basket." Possi- 
bly, however, the section — which has its peculiarities — 
was taken by Luke from some written source, not used 
by Mark or Matthew. 

Luke, with the great Gentile world in mind, sets 
forth a universal gospel. Jesus, whose genealogy is 
traced back to Adam instead of stopping with Abra- 
ham, is the Saviour for all men — for Samaritans, Gen- 
tiles, publicans, sinners, outcasts, as well as for Jews. 
Most of the parables peculiar to Luke's gospel are 
evangelistic; e. g., the great supper, the good Samari- 
tan, the Pharisee and the publican, the lost sheep, the 
lost coin, the prodigal son. There is special interest in 
women and in the life of the home. There are numer- 
ous teachings about riches — not in condemnation but 
in warning; possibly this was because Theophilus was 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 165 

wealthy, or possibly Paul, when taking up his great 
collection for the poor at Jerusalem, emphasized Jesus' 
teachings about riches and poverty, and this impressed 
Luke who was with Paul part of the time. There is 
much emphasis of prayer, both by direct teachings and 
by references to Christ's example. The catholic spirit 
of this gospel, harmonizing as it does with the teachings 
of Paul, is a better reason than the mere fact that Luke 
at times travelled with Paul, for calling it " the Gospel 
of Paul." 

Luke, more than Matthew, in following Mark's ac- 
count of Jesus, omits details that might seem incon- 
sistent with sinlessness and full divinity; e. g.y the 
violent acts in cleansing the temple; such emotions as 
anger, grief, groaning, vehemence; the strange sorrow 
and homesickness of Gethsemane, and the cry on the 
cross, '* My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken 
me?" He also shows deep respect for the apostles 
(a title he uses frequently while Matthew and Mark 
use it rarely), and dislikes to record anything to their 
discredit; e. g.y he omits the rebuke to Peter (Mark 
8 : 33), the censure of the twelve (Mark 8 : 17/.), the 
ambitious request of James and John (Mark 10 : 35/.), 
and the flight at Jesus' arrest (Mark 14 : 50) ; he tones 
down the denial by Peter (22 : 54-62), and the rebuke 
to the twelve on the lake (8 : 25); he excuses the 
sleep at Gethsemane as "for sorrow" (22 : 45), and 
Peter's proposal to build three tabernacles on the 



166 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

mount as "not knowing what he said" (9 : 33). In 
all this the spirit of a Christian of the second generation 
is shown. His picture of Jesus needs Mark's picture 
as its complement. 

John 

The Fourth Gospel has been so fully considered in 
the discussion of the Johannine problem that little 
need be added here. 

There is reason to believe that the present arrange- 
ment of the contents of this gospel is not in all places 
the original one. Certainly it is not in all places the 
probable one. For example, if chapter 5 is placed 
after chapter 6, then the notes of locality become 
harmonious: Jesus in Galilee (4 : 54) goes across the 
lake (6 : 1) and, after feeding the five thousand, goes 
up to the feast in Jerusalem (5 : 1) where his life is in 
danger (5: 16) which causes him to return to Galilee 
again (7:1). Such a rearrangement, also, puts all the 
visits to Jerusalem, except that of 2 : 13, in the last 
year of his life, after the close of his popular ministry 
in Judea. This, too, seems probable. While the 
work in Galilee still promised success, there was no 
reason for his stirring up the hostility of the rulers by 
appearing in Jerusalem; but when the Galilean work 
had failed, and the shadow of the cross grew more 
evident, Jesus seems deliberately to have sought every 
opportunity to place his claims clearly before the San- 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 167 

hedrin, that they might act upon them with full knowl- 
edge. The unnamed feast of 5 : 1, if the two chapters 
are transposed, would naturally be Pentecost. 

Another passage that seems out of place is 7 : 15-24. 
If it is placed directly after chapter 5, it forms a fit con- 
clusion to it. The reference to the miracle of Bethesda 
as if it had just been performed (7 : 23) ; the astonish- 
ment at his rabbinical teaching as if this was his first 
display of it (7 : 15); the ignorance of the multitude 
that his life was threatened (7 : 20), though at the 
Feast of the Tabernacles this was well-known (7 : 25) ; 
and the references to Moses and the law (cf. 5 : 45-47) 
— all suit the earlier feast far better than tabernacles. 
A simple transposition of this passage and 7 : 1-14 
removes many difficulties. 

Still again, chapter 14 with its closing words, " Arise, 
let us go hence," seems properly to conclude the ad- 
dress after the Last Supper. It will have that position 
if we put chapters 15-16 immediately after the pref- 
atory statement of 13:31; and we shall no longer have 
the contradiction between 16 : 5 and 13 : 36. The 
change will also make the opening words of chapter 
15 follow directly after Judas' departure to which 
they seem to refer; e, g., 15 : 6. 

Further rearrangements have been suggested, some 
of which are worth considering. The main difficulty, 
however, with all such changes in the order of the text, 
is to explain how the disarrangements could have 
arisen. It has been suggested that the leaves of the 



168 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

original papyrus roll became unglued and were fast- 
ened together again, but not always in their original 
order, and in proof of this it is pointed out that, if we 
take a page containing a certain number of words as 
the unit, these dislocated passages all prove to be multi- 
ples of that unit. It is not easy to accept this explana- 
tion, but nothing better has been offered. 

The theme of the Fourth Gospel is the self-revelation 
of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (20 : 31). Its 
main divisions are: 

Prologue and Preliminary Testimony, 1 : 1-2 : 12. 
The Self-revelation to the World, 2 : 13-12 : 50. 
By the Ministries of Jesus. 

In Judea, 2 : 13-3 : 36. 

In Samaria, 4 : 1-42. 

In GaHlee, 4 : 43-54; 6 : 1-71. 
By the Conflicts at the Feasts. 

At Pentecost, 5 : 1-47; 7 : 15-24. 

At Tabernacles, 7 : 1-14, 25-52. 

At Dedication, 9 : 1-10 : 39. 
By the Last Public Labors. 

In Perea and Bethany, 10 : 40-12 : 11 

In Jerusalem, 12 : 12-50. 

The Self-revelation to the Disciples, 13 : 1-20 : 31. 

By the Last Supper, 13 : 1-17 : 26. 

By the Last Sufferings, 18 : 1-19 : 42. 

By the Resurrection, 20 : 1-31. 
Appendix, 21 : 1-23. 



CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH GOSPEL 169 

If the style is the man, that of John merits special 
attention. Gloag says of it, "There is a remarkable 
simplicity in the style of John. His vocabulary is 
small; the same words — love, life, light, the world — 
continually occur and are interwoven together. The 
sentences are simple in construction, being in the terse 
aphoristic Hebrew manner, and not in the involved 
structure conformable to the genius of the Greek lan- 
guage, and illustrated in the Epistles of Paul. Con- 
necting particles are also very sparingly employed. 
Hence, of all the writings of the New Testament, none 
are so easily read and translated as those of John. 
There is also a peculiar kind of repetition. The same 
thoughts, or, at least, thoughts with little variation of 
meaning, are repeated for the sake of emphasis. Often 
the same idea is expressed both positively and nega- 
tively. . . . With the simplicity in style and diction, 
and even in the thoughts and sentiments of the Johan- 
nine writings, there is combined a real profundity 
which no human intellect can fathom. The Fourth 
Gospel especially is remarkable for its depth; it has 
been well called by the fathers *the spiritual gospel,' 
as compared with the synoptical gospels. It opens 
the deepest recesses of the spiritual life; it discloses the 
very heart of the incarnate God; it reveals the divine 
human nature which Christ possessed; it lifts up the 
veil, and lets us see into the holy of holies. The two 
preponderating ideas are life and light; and these 



170 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

are embodied in Christ: he is at once the life and the 
light of man, the source of all spiritual life, and the 
essence of all spiritual truth, the sun of the moral 
universe. The writings of John may be compared to a 
well of water, so clear and sparkling that at first one 
thinks he sees to the bottom; but that well is so deep^ 
that the more one gazes into it, the deeper does it ap- 
pear, and no one has yet been able to fathom it. 

"The interpretation of the Johannine writings is 
peculiarly difficult by reason of their profundity. 
Hence, one essential element of interpretation is sym- 
pathy with John's spirit. It is only a Johannine Chris- 
tian who can truly understand and interpret John's 
writings. It requires such a spiritual insight, as is 
rarely possessed, fully to fathom the deep things con- 
tained in them. Hence, a religious and spiritual nature 
is essential; we must have largely imbibed the spirit 
of Jesus Christ before we can enter into the spirit of 
John's writings. This well is deep; and, if destitute of 
a spiritual mind, we have nothing wherewith to draw. 
As Origen strikingly puts it : * The gospels are the first- 
fruits of all the Scriptures, and the first-fruits of the 
gospels is that of John, into whose meaning no man can 
enter unless he too has reclined upon the bosom of 
Jesus.'" 



CHAPTER XI 

THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 

All the topics we have considered bear directly or in- 
directly upon the great question whether the gospels 
are trustworthy; and the main arguments for or 
against an affirmative answer are drawn from them. 
But some additional arguments deserve a place in a 
special chapter. 

The story of Jesus, as given in the gospels, must be 
treated as either fact or fiction. Few if any scholars 
would pronounce it wholly fictitious. They would 
agree that probably there was such a person as Jesus of 
Nazareth, an earnest, high-minded Galilean peasant, 
who gathered a little band of disciples to whom he 
taught some simple but noble truths about God and 
man, and who finally was put to death by the Roman 
authorities. But they would no more treat the gospel 
story as sober history of this peasant than they would 
treat Tennyson's " Idylls of the King" as sober history 
of the British King Arthur. In their opinion it is 
mostly fiction. If they are right the problem at once 
arises. Who invented it ? For we cannot fairly refuse 
to accept the story as fact unless we can find some satis- 
factory explanation of how it originated, if a fiction. 

171 



172 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

The deists of the eighteenth century declared that 
the apostles deliberately lied about Jesus. But no 
one to-day accepts that explanation; it is too evidently 
absurd. The apostles by such fraud could gain only 
hardship, suffering, loss, and death; a man does not 
spend his life in proclaiming what he knows to be a lie 
for these rewards. The story they told was in many 
ways not to their own credit, for it recorded their stu- 
pidity, selfishness, cowardice; if they were adepts at 
invention, they certainly would have made their con- 
duct appear more praiseworthy. Moreover, the re- 
ligion which they preached with all earnestness had in 
it nothing but denunciation for deception, and eternal 
doom for liars; how could they proclaim it when con- 
science told them that they themselves were under its 
condemnation? An apostolic band of fiction-makers 
and mongers is inconceivable. 

The theory usually advanced to-day is that the gos- 
pel story was a product of the reverent and practically 
unconscious invention of the early church. To the 
simple story of Jesus, as originally told by the apostles, 
constant additions were made by ignorant, enthusiastic, 
imaginative Christians of the first century. Because 
they accepted him as Messiah, they believed he must in 
all respects have fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, 
and performed the mighty works expected of a Mes- 
siah. Because he was the hero of their faith, they gave 
to him the legendary greatness which increasingly 



THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 173 

gathers about a hero. Around his head they placed a 
halo of miracles; in his lips they put discourses of 
supernatural self-assertion and wisdom. It was not 
done deliberately and with intent to deceive; they hon- 
estly believed all that they delighted to proclaim — it 
was the self-deception of love. 

Against this theory we may bring the objection that 
so long as the apostles and other companions of Jesus 
were alive, they would be witnesses to the real facts, 
and hindrances to the growth of fiction. Indeed, 
Strauss and the other framers of the theory started with 
the supposition that the gospels were written well on in 
the second century, and set forth the thought of the 
church about Jesus a hundred years after his death. 
But, as we have seen, it is agreed to-day that certainly 
three of our gospels were written in the first century — 
and at least one of them as early as the middle of the 
first century — before the original witnesses had passed 
away, and when there had been little time for the de- 
velopment of myths and legends. Nevertheless, we 
must remember that among an ignorant, enthusiastic 
body of followers, myths and legends do develop 
quickly and persist most stubbornly. The lives of 
saints and founders of sects — heathen or Christian, 
ancient, mediaeval or modern — are usually embellished 
with details that will not endure historical criticism. 
And the mere fact that these lives were written by im- 
mediate disciples does not guarantee their accuracy. 



174 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

Accordingly, in considering the trustworthiness of the 
gospels, it is not enough to show that we have them in 
their original form, that their date is in the first cen- 
tury, and that their sources are the recollections of the 
apostles. We must also consider the qualifications of 
the apostles as witnesses, and the character of the story 
they tell. 

The fact that the gospel narrative is full of the 
miraculous does not justify an immediate rejection of 
it as evidently false, or a contemptuous judgment of 
the apostles as superstitious, credulous witnesses. 
This is the treatment often given by men who deny 
miracles; but it is most unfair. The question of 
miracles is a comprehensive one, starting with the 
philosophical problem of the existence of a personal 
God and his relations to the universe, passing next to 
the religious problem of the attitude of God toward 
man and the function of miracles in his self-revelation, 
and ending with the historical problem of the sufficiency 
of evidence that certain miracles were actually per- 
formed. If the student of the gospels is fully convinced 
that there is no personal God, or that the universe is 
independent of his will, or that he does not wish man 
to know him, or that sufficient knowledge of God is 
given in natural ways, then the miraculous is ruled out, 
and any report of it is absurd. In other words, the 
atheist or the deist is justified in affirming that miracles 
do not happen. But the agnostic, and still less the 



THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 175 

theist, has little right to make that affirmation until he 
has carefully examined the historical evidence that 
miracles have taken place. And no evidence is so im- 
portant and worthy of serious consideration as that 
presented in the gospels; for no miracles are in such 
evident harmony with the noblest conceptions of God 
and man as the miracles of Christ. 

The gospel story comes to us either directly or almost 
at first-hand from the apostles. This holds true what- 
ever may be the solution of the synoptic and Johan- 
nine problems. The apostles were not the only per- 
sons who accompanied Jesus during at least a part 
of his ministry (Acts 1 : 21-26); but they were the men 
who spoke with authority concerning it, and who 
considered witness-bearing to be one of their special 
duties. Were they trustworthy witnesses ? They cer- 
tainly had abundant opportunity to learn the facts 
which they proclaimed; no one disputes this. And, 
as we have already noted, their character and lack 
of inducement to deceive makes us believe that they 
would report the facts exactly as they had learned 
them. But were they competent witnesses; or did 
their ignorance and prejudices and enthusiasm make 
them, as some critics affirm, wholly incompetent? 

Before answering this, notice just what we ask of the 
apostles. We do not demand that they deal with the 
miracles as a twentieth-century scientist would, and 
give us their verdict concerning the supernatural. 



176 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

Nor do we demand that they Interpret Christ's teach- 
ing as a twentieth-century theologian would, and give 
us their opinion of its meaning. All we ask of them Is 
a correct statement of just what Jesus did do and say; 
then we ourselves can supply the scientific explana- 
tion or the theological Interpretation. Did they see 
five thousand men fed with a few loaves and fishes? 
Did they hear Jesus say, " I am the light of the world" ? 
Or were they so incompetent to see and hear that we 
cannot accept their testimony, though they honestly 
try to tell the truth ? Would men like the apostles be 
believed In their statement of facts if on the witness 
stand to-day? 

The answer to this Is well put by Dr. Gore : " The 
apostles will take very high rank among the world's 
witnesses. As represented In the gospels they were 
men not of the poorest but of the more Independent 
trading class; simple, literal-minded men; not super- 
stitious and still less romantic; free from all traces of 
morbidness; slow of behef through lack of imagination; 
as individuals strikingly different In character, so as 
not easily to be led in the same way; with the ex- 
ception of St. John not well adapted to be theolo- 
gians, and none of them (like St. Paul) controversial 
theologians; but singularly well qualified as witnesses. 
They were qualified as witnesses because, free from 
all preoccupation with ideas and systems, they were 
plain men who could receive the Impress of facts; who 



THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 177 

could tell a simple, plain tale, and show by their lives 
how much they believed it. And they were trained 
to be witnesses. Jesus Christ intended his gospel to 
rest on facts ; and, in correspondence with this inten- 
tion, the whole stress in the apostolic church was laid 
on witness. The first thing the church had to do, 
before it developed its theology, was to tell its tale 
of fact. *We are witnesses of these things'" ("The 
Incarnation," 81/.). 

The presence of errors and discrepancies in the gos- 
pels would not overthrow our belief that the apostles 
were trustworthy witnesses if we saw that these arose 
from (a) limitations in knowledge common to their land 
and century, e. g., the belief that certain diseases were 
caused by demons — provided, of course, that demonia- 
cal possession is proved an error; or (b) misunder- 
standings on the part of the apostles or their reporters 
of statements evidently open to misunderstanding, 
e. g.f Christ's teaching about his second coming; or (c) 
the natural variations of different persons telling the 
same story, e. g., the opening of the eyes of the blind 
at Jericho. Nor are the gospels discredited by the 
fact that each writer has his own way of treating the 
subject. This is true of all historians; the personal 
equation must be taken into account in estimating the 
value of their testimony. In the case of the evange- 
lists, however, we are surprised to find how little 
change that equation makes. Their reverence for the 



178 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

truth kept them from yielding to personal preferences 
and prejudices in reporting the facts. 

The frequent allusions in other New Testament 
books to facts about Christ furnishes another test of 
the trustworthiness of the evangelists and their sources. 
We have already noticed (p. 13) that from such un- 
disputed works as PauFs four great epistles we can 
gather enough to make a valuable outline of the life of 
Jesus, and that this outline agrees completely with the 
record given in the gospels. Now, unless the story 
thus outlined in PauFs letters is true, we must suppose 
that, less than thirty years after the death of Jesus, the 
real facts had been so completely lost that a scholar 
most eager and competent to recover them could not 
do so; and also that a fictitious story had been so cun- 
ningly framed as to deceive the keenest mind of the 
apostolic age. But if we accept the testimony of 
Paul as trustworthy, we have new and independent 
confirmation of the trustworthiness of the witnesses 
whose testimony is recorded in the Four Gospels. 

A much stronger objection to the theory that the 
story of Jesus is fiction reverently framed by the early 
church, lies in the character it portrays. The gospels 
are four sketches of the life of Jesus, made at different 
times and for different purposes. The first three have 
most material in common, yet each has its independent 
contribution; the fourth is almost entirely indepen- 
dent and supplementary. They may be compared to 



THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 179 

four pictures painted by different artists from different 
stand-points. Notice first, that all are pictures of the 
same person. Some critics dispute this, declaring that 
the Jesus of the synoptics is not the same as the Jesus 
of John; but the Christian Church throughout the 
centuries has never perceived any difference save that 
John portrays more clearly the inner, divine nature of 
the Lord. The pictures are composed of a multitude 
of details, each adding its touch to the portrait; yet 
all are in perfect harmony, so that at no point in the 
story can we pronounce an act or saying of Jesus to be 
out of keeping with his character. Captious critics 
have tried to do this, but have not succeeded. 

The character of Jesus, as thus portrayed in the 
gospels, is certainly most remarkable. It is symmetri- 
cal, sinless, unique: it is the noblest ever placed be- 
fore human contemplation: it is a perfect blending of 
the human and the divine. The evangelists do not 
try to impress this upon us by laudatory epithets: 
they do not even state it in abstract form: they simply 
give us a plain narrative of deeds and words, and leave 
us to form our own opinion of Jesus. What opinion 
has been formed, even by men who reject the miracles, 
is well stated by Lecky in words often quoted: "It 
was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an 
ideal character, which through all the changes of eigh- 
teen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an 
impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting 



180 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

on all nations, ages, temperaments, and conditions; 
has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the 
strongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so 
deep an influence that it may truly be said that the 
simple record of three short years of active life has done 
more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the 
disquisitions of philosophers, and all the exhortations 
of moralists. This has indeed been the well-spring of 
whatever is best and purest in the Christian life" 
("History of European Morals," 2 : 8). 

If the story of Jesus is fiction, it is the most wonder- 
ful fiction in all literature. "The inventor of it," as 
Rousseau declared, "would be more astonishing than 
the hero." Shakespeare is not worthy of comparison 
with the unknown man who had the genius to imagine 
such a character as that of Jesus and such a life as he 
lived. " It takes a Newton to forge a Newton. What 
man could have fabricated a Jesus? None but a 
Jesus," said Theodore Parker. But according to the 
theory of sceptics the transformation of the historical 
figure of a simple Galilean reformer into the wonder- 
ful God-man, the Lord and Saviour of the world, was 
accomplished not by the genius of any one man, but 
by the collective thought of the early church dwelling 
reverently upon its Master. If we accept this theory 
we must believe: 

(1) That a body of ignorant, self-deluded men and 
women of the first century, some of them reared in the 



THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 181 

narrowness of Judaism and others in the low morahty 
of heathendom, invented an ideal character free from 
all local, racial, and temporal limitations, harmoniously 
combining compassion with justice, humility with 
conscious greatness, the human with the divine — a 
character which the world has ever since pronounced 
unique and unsurpassable; 

(2) That they imagined a series of deeds by which 
such a character found remarkable and always ap- 
propriate expression, including among them miracles 
so full of grace and meaning that even a sceptic con- 
fesses "the halo of the miracles is worthy of the 
figure" (Goldwin Smith); 

(3) That they put into the mouth of this fictitious 
character the purest and sublimest teachings, free 
from the fanaticism that fired their own souls, and in 
strong contrast to the religious ideas they had been 
taught in childhood — teachings whose rich contents the 
world has by no means yet exhausted; and 

(4) That they did all this by no deliberate co-opera- 
tion or conscious effort, but simply by allowing their 
imaginations to have free play, and offering the various 
results as contributions to the gospel story. 

Such a theory, when we realize what it involves, is 
evidently incredible. We could more easily believe 
that the house-painters in some obscure town trans- 
formed a tavern sign into a rival of the Sistine Madonna 
by adding touches of paint from time to time as they 



182 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

passed on their way to work. It would never have 
been seriously advocated had not those writers who 
pronounce the gospel story a fiction felt, with good 
reason, that they must in some way explain the origin of 
the fiction, and that the theory of deliberate invention 
by the apostles or evangelists was even more incredible. 
If we want to know what the imagination of the early 
church would probably have produced, we may look 
at such a book as the Gospel of Thomas which is a 
fiction of the second century. It is an attempt to fill in 
by imagination the period of Jesus' history between 
his infancy and his visit to the temple at the age of 
twelve — a period that naturally arouses curiosity, but 
is passed over in the gospels with a single verse. It 
seems to have been popular in its day, and to have 
aroused no objections, but to us it is a monstrous pro- 
duction. The child Jesus works miracles, of which 
some are absurd, as carrying water in his cloak, while 
others are vindictive, as striking blind those who ac- 
cuse him. He is disrespectful to his teachers, angry 
with his parents and companions, ready to injure or 
kill by a curse any who offend him. The whole village 
is in constant fear of him, and with good reason they 
say to Joseph: "Since thou hast such a child, either 
leave the village or teach him to bless and not to curse ; 
for he is killing our children." There are other apoc- 
ryphal gospels of the same century or later; but they 
all are on the same low level. Worthless in other re- 



THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE GOSPELS 183 

spects, these gospels are valuable as a revelation of the 
historical imagination possessed by the early church; 
and they render still more improbable the theory that 
the story recorded by the evangelists was the product 
of that imagination. Though John Stuart Mill re- 
jects all miracles and pronounces much of the Fourth 
Gospel to be "poor stuff," he sums up the situation 
correctly when he says, "It is of no use to say that 
Christ, as exhibited in the gospels, is not historical, 
and that we know not how much of what is admirable 
has been superadded by the tradition of his followers. 
. . . Who among his disciples or among their pros- 
elytes was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed 
to Jesus, or of imagining the life and character revealed 
in the gospels?" ("Three Essays on Rehgion," 253). 
Or, as van Dyke puts it, " He is such a person as men 
could not have imagined if they would, and would not 
have imagined if they could" ("Gospel for an Age of 
Doubt," 59). 

If it is impossible to account for the gospel story as 
fiction, we must take it as history, and treat it accord- 
ingly. This does not mean that we must accept all its 
details without question, refusing to admit the possi- 
bility of error; even the most extreme believer in the 
inspiration of the Bible would not take such a position. 
If the gospels are historical documents, they must be 
submitted to historical criticism; the demand is just. 



184 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

and in the present day it cannot be denied. In fact, in 
proportion as we are persuaded that they are trust- 
worthy, we are glad to have them submitted to the most 
searching tests — provided the tests are fair and honestly 
applied. All that we ask is that the story of Jesus be 
not contemptuously waived aside as preposterous fic- 
tion, but be treated with respect and serious considera- 
tion. And if thus treated, we can wait with confidence 
the verdict of the honest seeker after truth. 



CHAPTER XII 

THE USE OF THE GOSPELS FOR A LIFE OF CHRIST 

Practically all that we know concerning the life of 
Jesus is what is recorded in the four canonical gospels. 
There is bare mention of him in heathen writers and 
possibly in Josephus: some incidents or sayings of 
doubtful genuineness are found in the Apostolic 
Fathers and the Apocryphal Gospels: a very few but 
precious items may be gleaned from the Book of Acts 
and the New Testament Epistles; but nowhere is there 
anything that really adds to the story of the four 
evangelists or takes away from it. Some of the Lives 
of Christ fill bulky volumes, but they reach their great 
size either by describing minutely the environment 
in which Jesus lived and worked, or by discussing at 
wearisome length the statements in the gospels. They 
may make the gospel narrative more intelligible: they 
cannot bring any further facts to supplement it. And 
not infrequently they are open to the criticism that we 
almost lose sight of the central figure in the mass of ir- 
relevant details they heap about him. 

The great question, then, concerning any Life of 

Jesus is. What is the author's attitude toward the gos- 

185 



186 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

pels? How far does he consider them to be trust- 
worthy history? And upon examination it will be 
found that he has adopted one of three possible opin- 
ions: 

(1) All four gospels are trustworthy. They give 
the testimony of honest men and competent witnesses. 
There may be minor errors or discrepancies, such as 
are found in the best of testimony, but as a whole 
their record is true and harmonious. 

(2) The synoptics are trustworthy, but John is not. 
Its picture of Jesus and its record of his words must be 
taken with qualifications or rejected entirely as being 
late in origin and deeply influenced by theological ideas 
of the second century. In John we see Jesus, not as 
he really was, but as a later age thought he must have 
been; and, therefore, the actual life of Jesus must be 
constructed from the synoptics alone or with very cau- 
tious use of John. 

(3) No one of the gospels is trustworthy. Either 
they were written too late for actual knowledge of the 
facts, or they are full of natural misconceptions and 
errors. All we can do is to take their statements as the 
basis of our work, and alter and reconstruct according 
to our best judgment. We may end by accepting the 
larger part of their narrative, or by going as far in 
scepticism as Schmiedel, who views with suspicion all 
except nine brief passages emphasizing the human 
weakness and ignorance of Jesus, and pronounces these 



THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 187 

nine " the foundation pillars for a really scientific life 
of Jesus" (see his article on the gospels in Encyc. 
Biblica) ; but in any case our attitude toward the gos- 
pels is one of hostile criticism. 

Logically a fourth position is possible, viz., that 
John is trustworthy, while the synoptics are not. But 
though certain critics give John the foremost place for 
accuracy, and would follow it rather than the synop- 
tics in settling a vexed question, e. g., the time of the 
Last Supper, I know of none who accepts John but 
rejects the synoptics. The reason is evident — the 
problems presented in the synoptics are of the same 
character as those in John, but by no means as difiicult; 
and the student who finds a solution for the latter is not 
troubled by the former. 

A writer's attitude toward the gospels will affect his 
work at every point. For example, if he adopts the 
second of the three positions, it will influence his con- 
clusion not only as to such a vitally important matter 
as the divinity of Christ, which is most clearly pro- 
claimed in the Fourth Gospel, but also as to the 
comparatively unimportant question of the length of 
Christ's public ministry. For, while John distinctly 
mentions three Passovers, so that the ministry could 
not have been less than two years, the synoptics men- 
tion only the Passover of the crucifixion; and the 
writer who follows them alone is apt to put the whole 
ministry into the space of one year. It is necessary, 



188 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

therefore, before accepting a writer's conclusions, even 

upon matters of chronology, to ascertain his position 

concerning the gospels. Usually he begins his work 

by definitely stating and defending it; and fairness 

to the reader would demand that he should always 
do so. 

Evidently a critic's philosophical and practical atti- 
tude toward the supernatural will largely shape his 
opinion of the trustworthiness of the gospels. As Dr, 
Bruce says, "It is the miraculous element in the gos- 
pels that chiefly raises the question as to their historical 
trustworthiness. Eliminate that element, and hardly 
a doubt would remain ; the residuary words and deeds 
of Jesus would be welcomed as a proof that in Judea 
there once lived a sage and philanthropist of unpar- 
alleled wisdom and goodness." In regard to the 
miracles of Christ, we may divide writers into a left 
and a right group, and also make a subdivision of each 
group, as follows: 

Left. — Those who deny all miracles, and who there- 
fore reject the gospel record of them as untrustworthy, 
the product of a credulous, unscientific age. They 
may explain the recorded miracles as myths and leg- 
ends that sprang up after the death of Jesus and gained 
ready credence among the early Christians, or else 
as events for which a natural explanation may be 
found, and parables and sayings of Jesus that were 
misunderstood and distorted into miracles. But, 



THE USE OP THE GOSPELS 189 

whatever the explanation, 'they insist that because 
miracles do not happen, the account must be untrue. 

Left Centre. — Those who deny all miracles, but be- 
lieve that Jesus possessed some power or knowledge 
by which he could perform deeds beyond the ability 
of other men. Possibly the psychic power which he 
exerted is latent in all of us, or the knowledge he 
possessed may some day be the common property of 
mankind, but up to the present time his wonderful 
deeds are unparalleled. Nevertheless, they were not 
supernatural; and whatever is related concerning them, 
that is evidently supernatural, must be rejected as 
unhistorical. 

Eight Centre. — Those who admit that Jesus per- 
formed real miracles — acts beyond not only present 
human power but all human power. Nevertheless, 
either from an unconscious aversion to the miraculous 
or from a desire to propitiate sceptics, these writers 
seek to diminish the number of his miracles as much 
as possible, by explaining away some of them as 
natural events or misreported parables, and question- 
ing the reliability of the report concerning others. 

Right. — Those persons who recognize without re- 
serve the power of Christ to work miracles. They may 
not accept all the miracles in the gospel record, but 
they do not question them simply because they are 
miracles. For example, certain writers of this group 
decline to believe that saints came forth from the grave 



190 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

and went into Jerusalem after Christ's resurrection; 
but they do this, not because the story involves a 
miracle, but because it is found only in Matthew, and 
is of a very different character from the other miracles, 
and seems like a later invention arising from a mis- 
understanding of such teachings as I Cor. 15 : 20 and 
John 5 : 25. The supernatural in the gospel story is 
not a stumbling block to these writers, for it harmon- 
izes with their conception. of God and his attitude tow- 
ard man. 

It is impossible to deny miracles and yet accept the 
gospels as the report of honest eye-witnesses. Paulus 
stands as a proof of this. In 1828 he wrote a book 
striving to show that the gospel story is from the apos- 
tles and is true, though none of the events in it were 
really supernatural. For every apparent miracle he 
found a natural explanation, " though the explanation 
is often more remarkable than the miracle." In some 
instances he thinks we read a miracle into the story, 
when the apostles themselves did not intend to relate 
one; e. g., the fish which Peter caught to pay the temple 
tax did not have a stater in its mouth, but was sold by 
him for that sum. In other instances he thinks the 
apostles honestly mistook a natural event for a miracle; 
e. g., when they thought Christ was walking on the 
water, he was in fact walking along the shore so close 
to the lake that it looked as if he were on the water; 
the paralytic borne by four supposed himself to be 



THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 191 

helpless, but really had strength enough to walk when 
roused to the effort; the resurrection of Jesus was 
caused by the effect of the myrrh and spices in restor- 
ing his vital forces, which had not been destroyed by 
the crucifixion. A book filled with such remarkable 
explanations is decidedly entertaining: as Fairbairn 
remarks, " One of the driest of books, it has yet come 
to be one of the most amusing." No later writer has 
fully repeated the attempt of Paulus, but some of his 
explanations are still brought forward by rationalists; 
e, g., that the daughter of Jairus was not really dead but 
only seemed so (Holtzmann); and that Jesus did not 
expect to feed the &ve thousand with his little supply 
of food, but was ready to share it as far as it might 
go, and this display of generosity shamed others into 
bringing forward their own hidden supplies which 
amply sufl&ced for all (Keim). Such attempts to keep 
the gospel story, and yet reject the supernatural, are 
ingenious but unsatisfactory: it is much simpler and 
more logical to throw out the miraculous events en- 
tirely. 

The discarding of the miracles, however, not only 
makes great gaps in the gospel narrative, but also 
renders that which remains almost valueless for a Life 
of Jesus. And this for two reasons: (1) The career 
of Jesus becomes unintelligible without certain miracles 
which shaped its course; e. g., what caused the crisis 
that practically ended his work in Galilee, if there 



192 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

was no miraculous feeding of the five thousand ? No 
multitude would ever be roused to a wild enthusiasm 
and an attempt to crown him king, if Jesus simply 
shamed them into sharing their food with one another. 
What happened at Bethany to alarm the Sadducees 
and make them join with the Pharisees in the decision 
that Jesus must be put to death ? Even Renan feels 
that something like a miracle must have taken place 
— "some motive proceeding from Bethany helped to 
hasten the death of Jesus": it was, he thinks, either 
some saying of Jesus to the sisters which was dis- 
torted into a report of a resurrection of Lazarus, or 
else there was a fraudulent miracle. What happened 
at Jericho to arouse the popular Messianic enthusiasm 
that led up to the triumphal entry? Even Keim is 
disposed to believe that in some way — perhaps through 
the intense power of faith working on the physical 
system — the blind actually was made to see; "at any 
rate this healing is by far the best attested among all 
the accounts of the blind in the gospels" (5 : 63). 
Above all, what happened to revive the faith of the 
disciples after it had been destroyed by the crucifixion 
of Jesus ? Every critic, though he may deny the resur- 
rection, admits that the church from the outset be- 
lieved it, since otherwise the existence of the church at 
all is inexplicable. And (2) the teachings of Jesus are 
often inseparable from miracles; e. g., the discourse 
in the synagogue at Capernaum (John 6 : 26/.) pre- 



THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 193 

supposes the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Such 
an utterance about the Sabbath as Mark 3 : 4 is hard 
to explain unless some miracle of mercy performed on 
that day had called forth the censure of the Pharisees. 
The story of the temptation in the wilderness — which 
originally was his own account of a profound spiritual 
experience — loses all its significance unless Jesus really 
supposed he had the power to work miracles, and here 
at the threshold of his public ministry was pondering 
on the problem how that power should be employed. 

" On the whole/' says Gore, " miracles play so im- 
portant a part in Christ's scheme that any theory which 
would represent them as due entirely to the imagination 
of his followers or of a later age, destroys the credibility 
of the documents not partially but wholly, and leaves 
Christ a personage as mythical as Hercules" ("The 
Incarnation," 54). Dr. Gore's statement ends in 
exaggeration. Even without the gospels Jesus would 
be more than a mythical personage: the Christian 
Church, the Lord's Supper, and the Lord's Day bear 
witness to his historic existence. But without the 
gospels the story of his life and work would have to 
be reconstructed almost wholly by imagination: and, 
indeed, that is the way in which rationalistic writers 
do reconstruct it. 

Most influential of all the factors that determine a 
critic's use of the gospels as sources for a life of Christ, 
is his attitude toward the divinity of Jesus. It might 



194 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

seem that since the gospels are practically the sole 
record of what he was or claimed to be, our opinion of 
the gospels would shape our opinion of Jesus: but in 
actual experience the reverse proves true. No one 
takes up the study of the gospels without some mental 
— not to say spiritual — bias for or against his divinity. 
This is created in part by the influences of childhood 
and early years; for life in a Christian land cannot be 
lived without some definite attitude toward the Founder 
of the Christian faith. But it is created even more by 
the system of philosophical thought accepted by a stu- 
dent. What we think about God and his attitude tow- 
ard man, and about man himself and his spiritual 
needs and possibilities, will shape our whole opinion of 
the credibility of an incarnation, and therefore of the 
proofs that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate. 
The student of the gospels having thus already — con- 
sciously or unconsciously — framed an opinion concern- 
ing the divinity of Jesus, will be inclined to accept 
in them only those facts that confirm his opinion. 

Though his miracles formerly were set forth as the 
first and chief proof that Jesus was divine, they are 
rarely used in this way now. In fact, their position 
has been almost completely reversed. Instead of say- 
ing "We believe that Jesus was divine because we 
know that he worked miracles," the defender of the 
Christian faith to-day says, "We believe that Jesus 
worked miracles because we know that he was divine." 



THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 195 

And for the main proof of the divinity he points not 
only to his character as portrayed in the gospels (see 
p. 179), but also to his teachings concerning himself — 
in which would be included his attitude toward God 
and men. The sceptic, therefore, who has settled to 
his own satisfaction the matter of miracles, has still to 
meet the far more important evidence of the teachings 
of Jesus. And in his endeavor to explain away the 
statements of Jesus that seem to be proclamations of 
his divinity, he is not as ready as were his predecessors 
to pronounce the gospels late and worthless, and their 
record of Jesus' words pure fabrication. He rec- 
ognizes the strength of the proofs that they, or their 
sources, are early, and reproduce the teachings of Jesus 
with, at least, a considerable degree of accuracy. He 
seeks accordingly some way by which the record may 
be accepted without admitting the divinity. One of 
these ways is so new and also just now so popular that 
a brief statement of it must be given. 

The Revelation of St. John and the latter part of the 
Book of Daniel are examples of a special class of writ- 
ings, called sometimes apocalyptical because they pro- 
fess to unveil the future, and sometimes eschatolog- 
ical because they deal with events in the last days of 
the present age or eon. Mark 13 and other passages 
both in the New Testament and in the Old belong to 
the same class, as also do a number of uncanonical 
books, some of which have only recently been dis- 



196 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

covered. Scholars are studying all these writings care- 
fully, and through the increase of material are able to 
understand them better than in former days. They 
are highly valued, not because they reveal the future 
to us, but because they show what the general Jewish 
thought about the future was in the first century. 
For we know that apocalyptical books were very pop- 
ular and influential in Palestine, and that from them 
were drawn the current ideas concerning the being and 
advent and work of the Messiah, and the nature of 
his Kingdom. In general their teaching was that in a 
time of stress and trial the Messiah would suddenly 
appear as a superhuman being, though not divine, who 
would crush all foes by his miraculous power, and set 
up a kingdom of marvellous plenty and glory. 

Now when Jesus began his work — so the sceptic 
would say — he found himself everywhere confronted 
with these eschatological ideas and expectations, and, 
doubtless, to a large extent he shared them himself. 
Accordingly, when he undertook to teach his country- 
men the simple but precious truths of the Kingdom of 
Heaven, he used increasingly the popular apocalyptic 
forms of thought concerning the Messianic Kingdom, 
and presently adopted the titles and claims of the 
apocalyptic Messiah. Whether the Messianic role was 
one he voluntarily assumed, or whether it was forced 
upon him by his followers, may be disputed; but in 
neither case did he really claim to be divine, for both 



THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 197 

to him and to his Jewish followers such a claim would 
be blasphemous. What is meant by The Son of Man, 
which was his own favorite title, and The Son of God, 
which was the title others delighted to give him, can 
be understood only by studying their meaning in the 
apocalypses. And all his teachings about his present 
and future power and mission should be interpreted by 
the same means. Of course, the teachings in the gos- 
pel of John are to be rejected as a later development 
when these Jewish eschatological ideas came into con- 
tact with Greek thought. 

To discuss this way of interpreting the teachings of 
Jesus about himself is beyond our present purpose. 
That apocalyptical ideas prevailed in his day, is un- 
doubtedly true; and a recognition of that fact may 
throw new light upon his words and work. For ex- 
ample, the temptation in the wilderness becomes in- 
telligible, if we bear in mind the popular expectation, 
gained from apocalypses, of how the Messiah would 
use his miraculous power. It was generally thought 
that when the Messiah appeared he would work mir- 
acles to accomplish at least three objects, (1) to prove 
beyond doubt that he was the Messiah, (2) to provide 
his followers abundantly with material, sensuous bless- 
ings, and (3) to overthrow his foes and seat himself 
upon the throne of universal empire. Out of Jesus' 
natural desire to draw men to himself arose the tempta- 
tion to use his power as the Son of God to work 



198 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

miracles that would meet these expectations. In sym- 
bolical form he describes it as the temptation (1) to 
descend from the pinnacle of the temple borne by 
angels, (2) to turn the very stones of the wilderness 
into bread for the hungry, and (3) to bow down to 
Satan. Such temptations confronted him not only at 
the outset but all through his ministry, and their 
origin was in the eschatological ideas that filled the 
minds of those who thronged about him wondering if 
he really could be the expected Messiah. 

It is one thing, however, to recognize that in his work 
Jesus was constantly confronted with apocalyptical 
ideas, and quite another thing to hold that he shared 
or even adopted those ideas. For this latter opinion 
there is little evidence. When we consider the char- 
acter of his ministry, the difficulty with which men 
grasped his teachings, the bitter opposition he aroused, 
and the slowness with which even the twelve recog- 
nized him to be the Messiah, it seems evident that he was 
far from fulfilling the popular Messianic expectations. 
And if the apocalyptical writings were the source of 
those expectations, they certainly cannot be used to 
explain the teachings of Jesus about himself. 

In the use of the first three gospels for a life of 
Christ, a recognition of the synoptic problem and its 
generally accepted solution ought to bear fruit in 
various ways. For example, if these gospels make use 
of a common source, the fact that an incident is given 



THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 199 

by all three does not increase its trustworthiness except 
as strengthening the evidence that it was in the com- 
mon source and not added later. And if the details 
of an incident vary in the three, such variations are to 
be treated no longer as those of different eye-witnesses 
but as those of different writers using a common source. 
Above all, the common sources, if they can be restored, 
are the real authority. The synoptists used them — 
whether faithfully or not critics must determine: and 
certainly present day writers are as competent as the 
synoptists to quote their statements or arrange their 
facts. The difficulty, of course, is in recovering the 
sources; and, despite all toil of critics, the results thus 
far are indefinite — at least, they have borne little fruit 
in the lives of Christ. The biographer of Jesus who 
undertakes to go behind the synoptics does not differ 
very much from his brother of fifty years ago: he may 
make a far more elaborate display of scholarship, and 
talk much more about Ur Marcus and Q and Evangelia 
infanticB and Jewish-Christian apocalypses, and the 
like; but when he comes to reconstruct the story, he 
usually follows pretty consistently his own prejudices 
for or against the miraculous and divine in deciding 
what to include and what to omit. 

If the gospels are taken as trustworthy records, 
there still remains the problem how they are to be used. 
Two methods of treatment are possible. On the one 
hand they may be looked upon as brief biographies. 



200 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

written from the stand-point of an historian. In this 
case, we construct from them a chronological outline, 
and fill this in with the various recorded events. 
There are evident gaps in the record, and there are 
sometimes apparent duplicates of events; what Jesus 
did, e. g.f in the period between his return from the two 
days' sojourn in Samaria and the beginning of his work 
in Galilee after John's imprisonment, must remain un- 
known, and whether he was rejected in Nazareth once 
or twice is an open question. But a careful study of 
the gospel record ought to result in a fairly definite and 
complete history which will trace the progress of Jesus 
step by step from the baptism to the ascension. 

On the other hand, the gospels may be considered as 
memorabilia of what Jesus was and taught, preserved 
by the disciples for guidance in fashioning their own 
lives after his example, for light upon the truths most 
important in their thought, and for use in persuading 
others that he was indeed the Saviour of the world. 
If such is the character of the gospels, it is impossible 
to gain from them a chronological history; they do not 
contain it. As well try to gain a history of Socrates 
from Xenophon's " Memorabilia." Some chapters can 
be reconstructed: a general idea may be gained of the 
progress of events that led to the creation of apostolic 
faith and also to the culmination of Jewish hostility; 
but a biography of Jesus is beyond attainment. The 
most recent lives of Christ are fashioned according to 



THE USE OF THE GOSPELS 201 

this view. Bossuet says : " We are no longer in a posi- 
tion to reconstruct an historical picture of the ministry 
of Jesus in Galilee, according to its chronological de- 
velopment; for the narrative of our gospels, with its 
prevailing timelessness and its frequent arrangement 
of the words and deeds of Jesus in a designedly material 
order, does not provide the means necessary for such a 
picture." 

In this connection we may notice that recent lives 
of Christ devote much less space than formerly to de- 
scriptions of Palestinian life and thought in the first 
century — that which Garvie calls "the scenery, the 
upholstery and drapery of the life of Jesus." Un- 
questionably there was a close connection between 
Jesus and his environment: all modern critics recog- 
nize this. Those who see in him only a remarkable 
Galilean Jew of the first century declare that his sur- 
roundings, social, political, intellectual and religious, 
had large influence in fashioning his character and 
thought. Those who accept him as divine recognize 
that these surroundings necessarily shaped the immedi- 
ate fashion of his teachings and his work. In either 
case a knowledge of his times is important for the study 
of his life. But the matter may be overdone. Bulky 
volumes crowded with minute and curious details of 
Palestinian life, drawn from all sources, do not set Jesus 
more clearly before us : they simply bewilder the reader 
and turn his thoughts away from the real subject of his 



202 INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE OF CHRIST 

study. And the minor value of such details is well ex- 
pressed by Garvie when he says, " An exaggerated im- 
portance is attached to a knowledge of contemporary 
custom and costume: even the ideas and ideals of his 
environment — important as a knowledge of these is — 
do not explain Jesus." 



APPENDIX 

LIVES OF CHRIST 



In the Mediaeval Age the human nature and life of Christ were 
largely ignored. Popular thought emphasized his divinity, and 
any attempt to portray the manner in which he lived as man 
among men would have seemed irreverent or even blasphemous. 
In their longing for one who had been tempted in all points like 
themselves and could be touched with the feeling of their infirm- 
ities, men turned to the Virgin and the saints. Lives of these 
were plenty and popular, but lives of Christ were almost lacking, 
and were largely poetical and legendary. 

After the Reformation the main interest was in theology, and 
thought concerning Christ centred upon his work as Redeemer 
rather than upon his earthly history. Harmonies of the gospels 
were produced to explain seeming discrepancies in the sacred 
story, but the Lives of Christ were simple repetitions of the 
Scripture narrative for devotional purposes. A work by Jeremy 
Taylor (1635) was worthy of that great divine, and is still of 
value; but its character is well indicated by its title — "The Great 
Exemplar of Sanctity and Holy Life according to the Christian 
Institution; described in the History of the Life and Death of 
the Ever-Blessed Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World; with 
Considerations and Discourses upon the several parts of the 
Story, and Prayers fitted to the several Mysteries." In 1767 
John Fleetwood (probably a pseudonym) published a Life of Christ 
which became remarkably popular, passing through edition after 
edition in later years, and still on sale to-day. As a scholarly 
work the book has no value, but it ministered to a want which 
men were beginning to recognize, and for which there was as yet 
scanty provision. 

203 



204 APPENDIX 

Modem interest in the record of Ckrist's earthly vears springs 
from many causes; but, as Fairbaim points out the main one 
is '"the growdi of the historical spirit." That spirit, which has 
led us to explore so carefully and critically all records of the past, 
could not be content to scrunnize the other great characters of 
antiquity and "ignore the Supreme Person of history." Rever- 
enc-e might hold back the critical student for a season, but sooner 
or later he would proceed to apply historical methods of investi- 
gation to the question. What do we really know concerning Jesus 
<rf Nazareth ? Who was he, and what did he do ? 

n 

Although the historical spirit had begun to develop, and Xie- 
buhr and others were reconstmcring in most radical fashion the 
history of Rome and of Greece, the immediate impulse that pro- 
duced the book, initiating a new epoch in the study of the life 
of Quist, was philosophical rather than historical. 

Sirauss was a young professor at Tiibineen, and an enthu- 
siastic disdple of Hegel. In lS3o he published a Life of Jesus, 
•which was translated in 1S46 by Miss Evans, "George EUot," 
from the fourth German edition. His aim was to use the prin- 
ciples of Hegelian philosophy in explananon of the Christian 
teachings concerning Jesus. God is not a Person; therefore, 
miracles are impossible. The full incarnation of God is not in 
any individual, but in Humanity. '''Humanity is the child of the 
visible MoAer and the invisible Father — of Xanire and Spirit; 
it is the Miracle-worker, in so far as in the cotirse of human 
history the Spirit becomes ever more perfectly the Master of 
Nature; it is the sinless, inasmuch as the process of its develop- 
ment is blameless — defilement cleaves to the individual, but is 
abolished in the species and its history; it is the One that dies, 
rises again, and ascends to heaven, since from the negation of its 
natural there proceeds alwajs a higher spiritual life." These are 
the absolute truths that are wrought into the story of Jesus. The 
historical facts of his life, so far as we can recover them, are 
few and simple. He was reared in Xazareth, baptized by John, 
had disciples, went about teaching, introduced the Messianic 
kingdom, roused the hatred of the Pharisees, and was crucified. 



APPENDIX 205 

The rest of the story, as told in the gospels, which were written 
late in the second century, is mythical. By a myth Strauss does 
not mean a deliberately invented falsehood; it is a story embody- 
ing popular theological and philosophical ideas, which is framed 
almost unconsciously by simple-hearted believers and incor- 
porated in the history of the person to whom they feel it fitly 
belongs. The early Christians believed that Jesus was the Mes- 
siah (though Strauss fails to account for the rise of that belief), 
and so they took it for granted that he must have done whatever 
they supposed the Messiah would do. They had gained their 
Messianic ideas largely from the Old Testament; therefore, what- 
ever they found there, they transferred to the life of Jesus. For 
example, they inferred from Isaiah 35 : 5-6 that when the Mes- 
siah came the eyes of the blind would be opened, the ears of the 
deaf unsealed, etc., and so such miracles became part of their 
conception of the deeds of Jesus. Moreover, they supposed that 
all the wonderful incidents in the lives of the Old Testament 
saints must have been paralleled or surpassed in the life of the 
Messiah; so the shining of the face of Moses gave rise to the 
myth of the transfiguration on the mount; the feast of Elisha 
(II Kings 4 : 42/.) was magnified into the feeding of the five thou- 
sand; the ascension of Elijah suggested the ascension of Jesus, 
etc. Thus a large part of the supernatural incidents in the life 
of Jesus can readily be accounted for. As regards the rest, the 
myths are an attempt to express eternal verities concerning the 
union of God with man and its manifestations — ^verities which 
the Christian church perceived, but which were supposed to have 
been revealed in Jesus instead of in Humanity. These events 
in the life of Jesus should be interpreted, not as history, but as the 
picturesque thought of a simple age concerning the manifestation 
of the Spirit in the life of mankind. 

This was the famous mythical theory of Strauss. He wrote 
his book, as he states in its preface, for theologians and not for 
the laity, and with the conviction that it would help rather than 
injure the Christian faith. Many years later, in 1864, he pub- 
lished another Life of Jesus (translated in 1865) more popular in 
form, in which he largely abandoned the mythical theory, and ex- 
plained the gospel story as a deliberate falsehood of the early 
Christians. Finally, in his latest work, "The Old Faith aud the 



206 APPENDIX 

New," he rejected Christianity entirely, thus showing the legiti- 
mate result of his original undertaking. 

The book by Strauss at once aroused much excitement, and 
brought upon him a storm of orthodox indignation. It called 
forth a host of replies, among which were two Lives of Christ 
deserving notice. 

Neander was originally a Jew named David Mendel, and he 
took the name Neander ("a new man") when converted to 
Christianity. He was now a prominent church historian in Ber- 
lin, a man of great learning and piety. He answered Strauss by 
publishing in 1837 a Life of Christ, which was translated in 1848. 
It is keen and devout, accepting the four gospels and defending 
the miracles, but it is inclined to go as far as possible in yield- 
ing to the objections of sceptics in order to win them back from 
following Strauss. The book is valuable, but in many ways fails 
to meet the needs of the present day. 

Lange, best known as a famous commentator, held at Ziirich 
the chair of theology which would have been given to Strauss 
had he not roused the opposition of the orthodox. In 1844-7 he 
published a Life of Jesus (translated in 1864) which was his con- 
tribution to the controversy then waging. It is a voluminous 
work, devout in spirit and accepting all four gospels, but vague 
and fanciful in its treatment of Christ's divinity and its theory 
of the relation of miracles to natural law. The average reader 
will find himself wearied and befogged in its pages. 

Ill 

A myth requires time for its development; therefore, if the 
gospels are full of myths, they must have been written far down 
in the second century. Strauss in his first work simply took the 
late date for granted, thereby leaving the weakest point in his 
theory undefended. But a group of scholars, like him Hegelian 
in their philosophy and desirous of explaining the origin of Chris- 
tianity by purely natural causes, soon undertook the task he had 
slighted. 

The Tubingen School is the name given to this group because 
its leader, Ferdinand Christian Baur, was professor at Tubingen, 
and there gathered around him many brilliant younger men as 



APPENDIX 207 

his disciples and supporters. In their opinion Christianity at the 
beginning was simply one form of Judaism with Jesus as the 
Jewish Messiah. Paul was the first to develop the broader view 
that Jesus is the Messiah of the whole world, and that Chris- 
tianity is wholly distinct from Judaism. Thereupon arose a bitter 
and prolonged conflict between the two parties — the Jewish form 
of Christianity fiercely opposing the Pauline. Later on, the two 
were reconciled; and still later the fact that there had ever been 
a conflict was covered up. In this way the Tubingen School ex- 
plained Christianity as a purely natural evolution according to the 
regular Hegelian process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis — ^posi- 
tion, opposition, and reconciliation. Accepting this view, they 
had a test by which to determine the date of New Testament 
writings. Books that show the conflict in actual existence — in 
particular, Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans for the Pauline 
side, and Revelation for the Jewish — belong to the Apostolic Age; 
books conciliatory in spirit, and striving to promote harmony by 
showing real agreement underneath seeming differences, are post- 
apostolic; books which ignore the conflict altogether are late in 
the second century. Applying this test to the gospels, John is 
found to be neither Jewish nor Pauline, but wholly Catholic — 
before it was written the conflict had ceased and been forgotten; 
the other three gospels are conciliatory, Matthew being written 
from the Jewish stand-point and Luke from the Pauline, while 
Mark is chiefly a compilation from the other two. John, there- 
fore, must have been written so late in the second century as to 
be worthless historically; the synoptics must be placed earlier 
in that century, and are imperfectly trustworthy, Matthew being 
the earliest and most reliable. In making use of the gospels we 
must not treat them as books of history, but rather as Tendenz 
Schriften — writings shaped by party feelings — and we must bear 
in mind the special object of each writer and the late date at 
which he wrote. 

The Tubingen School produced no Life of Jesus, but set forth 
its conception of his life in works on Paul and the Apostolic Age, 
of which Baur's Paul (1845, translated in 1875) and Church His- 
tory of the First Three Centuries (1853, translated in 1879) were 
the beginning. It now has few if any followers, because careful 
study has shown that the New Testament books were written at 



208 APPENDIX 

an earlier date than would be consistent with its theory. Un- 
doubtedly there was a struggle in the apostolic church between 
the Jewish and the Gentile parties concerning the Law and the 
freedom wherewith Christ had set them free; but it was neither 
so long and wide-spread nor so dominant over all church life as 
the Tubingen theory supposes. But the Tubingen School for a 
season exerted a strong influence, felt by every writer upon the 
life of Christ; and it rendered one lasting and valuable service — 
henceforth no writer could ignore the problem of the date and 
origin of the gospels. 

Ewald, a most learned Oriental scholar at Gottingen, devoted 
the fifth volume of his great work on the History of Israel to 
the life and times of Christ (1854, translated in 1865). He 
was strongly opposed to Baur, and accepted all four gospels as 
written in the Apostolic Age, ably defending John ajs the work 
of the apostle. As regards miracles he is Left Centre, for, while 
he believes Jesus to be "the sole, unfaiHng instrument of the 
salvation of this world," he rejects the virgin birth, and sees in 
him simply a human being elevated to a unique and perfect union 
with God, and in his miracles a revelation of what the spirit of 
man thus elevated can accomplish. The life of Christ is the 
culmination of the religious history of the Jew-s — the full revela- 
tion of God to man. Jesus combined in himself all the pro- 
phetic, priestly, and kingly power that had previously been ex- 
hibited in Israel; "thus he became the Son of God as no one 
hitherto had been — in a mortal body and in a fleeting space of 
time the purest and most perfect image of the Eternal Himself; 
thus he became the Word of God, speaking from God by his 
human word no less than by his whole appearing and work ; and 
thus the one, true Messiah, the undying King of the Kingdom of 
God which was in him first attaining its perfection amongst men 
— the one man to whom as Guide and Lord every one must con- 
stantly look up and aspire." The book is by no means easy 
reading, and Ewald is stronger in Old Testament study than in 
New. 



APPENDIX 209 

IV 

According to the theories of Strauss and Baur, the part which 
Jesus played in the origin of Christianity was really an insignifi- 
cant one. Almost any high-minded, earnest teacher might have 
given the feeble initial impulse that set the Christian church in 
motion, and have served as the figure around which the later con- 
ceptions of a divine founder were to cluster. Indeed, instead of 
recognizing that Jesus created Christianity, these writers practi- 
cally maintain the exact opposite — that Christianity created Jesus; 
for, without the later additions to his story, he remains a shade 
as thin and unsubstantial as that described in Arthur Clough's 
poem, " The Shadow." 

Renan, the brilliant French Semitic scholar, saw this funda- 
mental mistake, and set himself to correct it. "History is not a 
simple play of abstractions; in it men are more than doctrines": 
hence all attempts to explain the origin of Christianity by philo- 
sophical principles and tendencies and parties and conflicts, apart 
from the creative personality of its Founder, are doomed to fail- 
ure. Accordingly, Renan in his ** Vie de J^sus " undertook to pre- 
sent Jesus as "a man of great religious genius who, through his 
daring originality and the love he had the gift of inspiring, became 
the object and fixed the point of departure of the future faith of 
humanity." The book was published in 1863, and at once aroused 
so much attention that its publication was called one of the 
events of the century. Eleven editions were exhausted within 
six months, and it was translated into English the same year. 

Some of its great popularity was due to the charm of its liter- 
ary style, so unlike the heavy, tedious chapters of the German 
writers; but what attracted readers still more powerfully was its 
novel and vivid picture of Jesus. Renan rejected the super- 
natural entirely, declaring that "miracles are things that never 
happen": though the gospel story is full of them, they are to be 
treated as simply legends which, after the death of Jesus, grew 
up rapidly in an age of childish credulity. Having thus con- 
temptuously cast away a large part of what the evangelists record, 
he treated the rest of their narrative with the utmost liberty, re- 
constructing the history according to his own theories and fancy. 
Jesus was a pure, high-minded Galilean peasant upon whom had 



210 APPENDIX 

dawned the mighty truth that God is our Father. He gathered 
about him a little band of disciples, drawn by the charm of his 
presence and the novelty of his teaching; and these he taught 
to live in simplicity and joyousness as children of the Father. 
Presently he came under the influence of John the Baptist, an 
influence which on the whole was harmful, since through it he 
was led to believe that his mission was that of a universal re- 
former, and that the Kingdom of God must be introduced by an 
overthrow of existing conditions. His disciples increased rapidly 
after the imprisonment of John, and, because they believed him 
to be the Messiah, he was forced against his will into an attempt 
to fulfil Messianic expectations. He had to make claims that 
he knew were unfounded, and in support of them he had to 
adopt or, at least, to acquiesce in fraud and sham miracles. His 
career grew more fanatical and desperate until, when he was 
put to death, " it was time for death to relax the tension of a situ- 
ation strained to the utmost — to remove him from the impossi-' 
bilities of a path that had no issue." Had he died in the first 
period of his career, "there would not have been in his life a 
single page that could wound us"; but, as it was, we often have 
to make excuses, to confess that "he adopted, because they were 
popular, many things with which he did not agree," and "some- 
times one might have said that his reason was unbalanced." 
The book abounds in professions of deepest admiration, and 
closes with the statement, "Whatever unlooked-for events the 
future may have in store, Jesus will never be surpassed; his wor- 
ship will unceasingly renew its youth; his story will call forth 
endless tears; his sufferings will subdue the noblest hearts; all 
ages will proclaim that among the sons of men no one has been 
born who is greater than he." And yet it repeatedly describes 
Jesus as doing things that shock a keen moral sense, though the 
writer does not always seem to realize that they are shocking. 
When the multitude at Jerusalem were discussing Jesus, "some 
said, He is a good man; others said. Nay, but he deceiveth the 
people" (John 7 : 12); Renan would combine both opinions as if 
they were not contradictory. Of the book, Weiss says very prop- 
erly, "It is not history, but a romance," and H. B. Smith adds, 
"It can not be read without the risk of marring the moral sense." 
Pressense, a French clergyman and author, in 1865 published 



APPENDIX 211 

his " Jesus Christ, son Temps, sa Vie, son OEuvre," as an answer 
to Renan. Though somewhat florid in style, it is a full, clear, and 
orthodox life of Christ, accepting the gospel record and defend- 
ing the miracles. At the time it was, perhaps, the best book on 
the subject from an orthodox stand-point, and it passed through 
many editions. Though translated into English in 1866, it has 
not been widely circulated here because we have other Lives of 
Christ of the same character written with equal or greater ability. 



Though the attempt of Renan to explain the origin and char- 
acter of Christianity through the influence and teachings of its 
Founder was far from successful, it opened a line of study which 
has been followed with great profit in late years. What was the 
secret of the influence of Jesus ? What was the aim that he had 
in view when establishing the Kingdom of God ? What were the 
methods and the laws he laid down for his followers ? Questions 
like these, when once forced upon men's attention, are too in- 
teresting and profitable to be left unanswered. 

*'Ecce Hcmio^' was an attempt to answer them. The book was 
published anonymously in 1866, and the secret was kept for 
many years that its author was J. R. Seeley, who later was an 
eminent professor of modern history at Cambridge, England. In 
his preface he says that he had been led to the study of his sub- 
ject, " because, after reading a good many books on Christ, he felt 
still constrained to confess that there was no historical character 
whose motives, objects, and feelings remained so incomprehen- 
sible to him"; and what he has written is an endeavor "to fur- 
nish an answer to the question. What was Christ's object in found- 
ing the Society which is called by his name, and how is it adapted 
to attain that object?" For his purpose only the general out- 
lines of the life of Christ are necessary, and these he takes with- 
out question from the gospels; also he recognizes that "the fact 
that Jesus appeared as a worker of miracles is the best attested 
fact in his whole biography." The book, as the title indicates, 
confines itself to the human side of Christ, and considers in detail 
the call he gave to his disciples and the legislation he gave to 
his Society. A second volume, in which the divine side of Christ 



212 APPENDIX 

and his personal relations as Judge and Master to all men 
should be discussed, was promised, but never written. "It was 
a fresh and powerful book; it went, as it were, unweakened by 
metaphysical or critical hesitancies, straight to the moral heart 
of the matter, and asked the meaning of the person and message 
and society of Jesus" (Fairbairn). F. G. Peabody says of it: 
"The extraordinary insight of this book into the spirit of the 
gospels, and its beauty and vigor of expression make its publi- 
cation an epoch in the interpretation of the teaching of Jesus." 
Modern study of the social and ethical teachings of Jesus, which 
is constantly increasing, may be said to date from its appearance. 
Of course, the restriction of the discussion to the human side of 
Jesus made the book — ^reverent though it was and wholly unlike 
Renan in moral tone — seem to many a pitifully inadequate pict- 
ure of the Godman; and it aroused much criticism and many 
replies, among them the "Ecce Deus," 1868, of Joseph Parker, a 
prominent London preacher. 

VI 

Another result of Renan's work was to make students recognize 
the importance of a careful investigation of the environment in 
which Jesus lived and labored. Renan in his introduction de- 
scribes his surprise at the light upon the life of Jesus which was 
gained by a sojourn in Palestine: "before my eyes I had a fifth 
gospel, torn, but still legible; and from that time, through the 
narratives of Matthew and Mark, I saw, instead of an abstract 
being who might be said never to have existed, an admirable 
human figure living and moving." And in his book Renan had 
endeavored to follow the rule which he himself lays down — "The 
first task of the historian is to sketch well the environment in 
which the events he relates took place." Of course, if Jesus was 
simply a man, the influences that surrounded him go far tow- 
ard explaining his career; and if we recognize his divinity, still 
we must approach it, as did the first disciples, by first becoming 
acquainted with his humanity as displayed under special condi- 
tions of race and age and thought. In no case can we ignore 
the land and the times in which Jesus lived. 

Keim, professor of historical theology at Zurich, gave us the 



APPENDIX 213 

first of the great environmental biographies in his "History of 
Jesus of Nazara in its Connection with the National Life of His 
People." It appeared in three large volumes in 1867-72 with an 
English translation in six volumes, 1873-83. It is full and admi- 
rable in its treatment of all the facts of Jewish life and thought 
that bear upon its subject. Keim, like Renan, also sees that 
"no religion depends upon the person of its founder so fully as 
the Christian religion: in other instances faith is based chiefly on 
the founder's teachings, but here rather upon a life in which men 
have found not merely a voice from heaven but a divine advent." 
In his use of the gospels he rejects John entirely, and gives pref- 
erence to Matthew as the earliest of the synoptics, written about 
A. D. 68. On miracles he is Left Centre, rejecting all the nature 
miracles, and holding that the cures wrought by Jesus were by 
the action of spirit upon spirit — the product of high spiritual life 
and intense sympathy on the part of Jesus, and of faith in him 
on the part of the sufferer. While he denies the bodily resurrec- 
tion of Jesus, he ably refutes the theories of earlier sceptics, and 
holds that there was granted to the sorrowing disciples a spiritual 
vision of their living Lord — "a telegram from heaven" — to as- 
sure them that he had conquered death. Keim was unwilling 
to accept the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ; yet he was 
deeply impressed with the sublimity of his life "which makes the 
impression of mysterious loneliness, superhuman miracle, divine 
creation." Dr. S. M. Jackson says of his book: "Nothing like it 
had hitherto appeared. Immense learning, tireless energy, ner- 
vous force, deep convictions, cautious judgment, reverence — these 
united give the work a lasting importance. It was and remains 
the Life of Jesus from a rationalistic stand-point." 

Fouard, professor of theology in Rouen, wrote in 1879 a Life of 
Jesus (translated in 1890), which is interesting as being the work 
of a Roman Catholic abb^. Naturally, he gives a place in it to 
the traditions handed down by the church, and interprets certain 
sayings of Jesus from the Roman Catholic stand-point; but there 
is little in it to distinguish it from similar works by devout, ortho- 
dox Protestants. It is the production of a scholar, and is written 
in an easy, attractive style. 



214 APPENDIX 

VII 

Continued study of the dates for the gospels slowly forced back 
the Tubingen School until scholars generally agreed that the sy- 
noptics must have been written in the jfirst century and that John 
could not be later than the opening years of the second century. 
If so, they were written in the lifetime of either the apostles 
themselves or of those who were the immediate disciples of the 
apostles; and the objection that they are too late to be trust- 
worthy is overthrown. But, with this problem out of the way, 
others took its place. The most important were the Synoptic 
Problem and the Johannine Problem. Neither of these was new; 
but they now began to push to the front, where they remain till 
the present day. Any critical Life of Christ has to take them up, 
and to determine, not merely whether our four gospels are of 
early date, but what are the sources, if any, that lie behind them 
and give the story of Jesus as it was originally told. 

Weiss, professor of theology at Berlin, published in 1882 a Life 
of Christ (translated in three volumes in 1883-84) in which these 
problems and their bearing on the history of Jesus are clearly 
recognized. He regards John as more trustworthy than the 
synoptics, or at least as correcting them in certain instances. He 
also adopts one form of the "double source" or "two-document" 
theory of the origin of the synoptics. This theory in one form 
or another is largely accepted to-day, and Weiss should be studied 
as an introduction to it. His book was a reply to Keim, and is 
able and suggestive. As to miracles, he is Right Centre, holding 
that Christ wrought true miracles and rose from the dead, but 
he is inclined to rationalistic explanations when possible. For 
example, the feeding of the five thousand may have been nothing 
more than "a miracle of providence" by which, in some purely 
natural though unexplained way, the food was divinely supplied 
at the precise hour of need. The book is one for careful study 
rather than for popular reading; but it well repays the time 
spent upon it. For Weiss is one of the greatest of critics and 
exegetes, and his spiritual insight is profound. Dr. Sanday's 
advice that a student of the life of Jesus should take Weiss as 
his principal commentary would be endorsed even by those who 
are unable to accept all its conclusions. 



APPENDIX 215 

VIII 

The works we have thus far considered, much as they differ, 
all agree that our opinion of Christ must depend upon the his- 
torical facts of his life and upon our philosophical attitude tow- 
ard the supernatural. But in the last quarter of a century a new 
school of theology has developed — called Ritschlianism, from its 
founder, Albrecht Ritschl — which seeks to make religion entirely 
independent of science and metaphysics by conJSning one to the 
re&.lm of faith and the other to the realm of knowledge. For 
example, concerning any fact we may ask, what evidence is there 
for it ? and what explanation can be given for it ? — these are ques- 
tions of science and philosophy; or we may ask, what is its moral 
value ? and what does it signify to us as spiritual beings ? — these 
are questions of religion. The answers in the one instance should 
not, according to Ritschlianism, at all affect the answers in the 
other. Science may refuse to accept an event as a miracle be- 
cause natural causes for it can be discovered; nevertheless re- 
ligion may treat it as miraculous because it has the practical 
value of a miracle. Philosophy may be unable to accept the 
divinity of Christ because it involves an incredible union of God 
and man; but religion, ignoring such perplexity of metaphysical 
thought, may still recognize his divinity because he has for men 
the practical value of God incarnate. 

Such an attempt to combine doubt and faith, scepticism and 
belief, is, to say the least, somewhat bewildering to the ordinary 
man; and yet it has greatly attracted some of the keen thinkers 
of the present day. We see its influence in Harnack, whose 
"What is Christianity?" has been widely read; and in Wendt, 
whose book on the Teaching of Jesus is a remarkably able one. 
And we have a Life of Christ written from the Ritschlian stand- 
point. 

Stajifer, professor of theology in Paris, gives us this in " Jesus 
Christ, His Person, His Authority, His Work," published in 
1895-6 and translated soon after. In his treatment of the sources 
he accepts the "two-document" theory concerning the synoptics, 
and regards John as the recollections of the apostle, written 
down by some disciple, perhaps under his personal supervision. 
The work is divided into three parts. 



216 APPENDIX 

Part I treats of Jesus Christ before his ministry. Jesus was a 
man of his time, and received the ordinary training of a Jewish 
youth, which is minutely described. In his thought he accepted 
the best that there was in the teachings of both the Pharisees and 
the Essenes. His originaHty consisted in "a very clear and full 
consciousness of a union with God, which nothing in the past 
had ever troubled, and which nothing troubled in the present." 
Like all Jews, he was expecting the Messiah, and the question, 
what if I were the Messiah ? often presented itself to him. The 
influence of John the Baptist over him was strong, and led him 
to baptism, where he received the Messianic consciousness. He 
began his public work in accordance with popular Messianic con- 
ceptions, in which John shared; but after a time, through an inner 
experience indicated by the story of the temptation in the wilder- 
ness, he rose above this ideal to a higher one. 

Part II treats of Jesus Christ during his ministry. The sub- 
ject is discussed topically, and no clear idea is given of the par- 
ticular events or of the course and development of the ministry. 
One chapter is devoted to a discussion of the miracles. They 
were no part of the Messianic work, but belonged simply to 
Christ's vocation as a rabbi, since one work of a rabbi was to 
cure diseases and cast out demons. Whether Stapfer regards 
them as supernatural or not, it is hard to say; for on the one 
hand he lays down the axiom, " the laws of nature are inviolable," 
hence it follows that the so-called miracle, if it really took place, 
can only be something which lies outside of the present known 
forces of nature; yet on the other hand he says, "By prayer one 
acts upon God, and through Him upon nature itself; this is why 
Jesus certainly performed true miracles, and did it often; for 
God certainly gave him the answer to his prayers." 

Part III, which is the largest of the three, treats of the Death 
and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Up to the very hour of his 
arrest, though he saw the dangers thickening about him, Jesus 
hoped to escape death; and the betrayal by Judas was a surprise 
to him. Yet he died with the assurance that his cause would 
triumph even by means of his death. As to the resurrection, 
there were spiritual appearances to the disciples, but no resur- 
rection of the body, though how the tomb became empty we can- 
not say. Really what took place on the third day we never can 



APPENDIX 217 

know, and it is a matter of little importance; concerning the 
resurrection "the true believer has no need of historic proofs; he 
has intuitions of heart and conscience, and those eternal reasons 
which lie in the depths of his soul, and which the abstract rea- 
son knows not of." This is a typical Ritschlian conclusion. 

IX 

Two other lives of Jesus, both written in German but accessible 
in translation, may be briefly described. 

Holtzmann, professor at G lessen, published a Life of Jesus in 
1901. He holds the "two-document" theory concerning the 
synoptics, and finds in John little of historical value. The Gos- 
pel of the Hebrews he considers as " on the whole similar to our 
synoptic gospels, but at the same time completely independent 
of them, while yet possessed of an equal value"; and he makes all 
possible use of it. He thinks the duration of the ministry " can- 
not be reliably fixed," but inclines to one year and some months. 
Jesus was born at Nazareth, and the stories that cluster around 
Bethlehem are unhistorical. He grew up conscious of no sinful 
action, yet consented to be baptized by John because he might 
have sinned unconsciously. (As a matter of fact, in later life he 
does display occasional bursts of ill temper; e.g., in his treatment 
of the Syrophcenician woman and his cursing of the fig tree.) 
In a spiritual vision at the baptism he gains the Messianic con- 
sciousness and at the same time the Holy Spirit endows him 
with Messianic attributes. At a comparatively early stage of 
his ministry he foresees by purely human wisdom that death is 
the inevitable end; but he nobly labors on in sublime confidence 
that his labors will not be in vain. As to miracles, Holtzmann is 
Left Centre. The healings were the effect of mind upon mind; 
the nature miracles were in some instances "remarkable coinci- 
dences," in others exaggerations or poetical accounts of natural 
events. There was no resurrection. The tomb was empty be- 
cause Joseph of Arimathsea had quietly removed the body, not 
wishing "to permit a crucified man to lie permanently beside 
the dead of his own family." The disciples were expecting Jesus 
to rise on the third day, i. e., in a very short time; hence in Galilee 
Peter first and then the others had visions of the risen Lord. 



218 APPENDIX 

"The formula which sums up the historical significance of Jesus 
Christ's appearance is this: the highest moral end in life com- 
bined with the joyful assurance of eternal salvation." Evidently 
the book is not at all an advance upon Renan, and it lacks the 
literary charms of that popular writer. 

Bossuet, professor of theology at Gottingen, in his "Jesus" 
(1904, translated in 1906), reminds us in style and thought still 
more strongly of Renan, though his attitude is more serious and 
reverent. He does not attempt to construct a narrative life of 
Jesus, for which he holds that the gospels do not provide the 
necessary means; but he gives us a study of his work, teachings, 
and person. The son of Joseph as well as of Mary, performing 
no miracles, but only works of healing, "entirely within the 
bounds of the psychologically conceivable," looking forward to 
his death as no more sacrificial than that of any martyr for the 
truth, he " never overstepped the limits of the purely human." He 
did appropriate to himself the Messianic expectation, because he 
was confident that the Kingdom of God was at hand, and "ac- 
cording to the popular ideal this was inconceivable without the 
Messiah." Yet he did this reluctantly. "The Messianic idea 
was the only possible form in which Jesus could clothe his inner 
consciousness, and yet an inadequate form; it was a necessity, 
but also a heavy burden which he bore in silence almost to the 
end of his life; it was a conviction which he could never enjoy 
with a whole heart." The uniqueness of Jesus and the secret 
of his life and work lay in the fact that he " felt that he stood 
in such closeness of communion with God the Father as be- 
longed to none before or after him. He was conscious of speak- 
ing the last and decisive word. He felt that what he did was 
final, and that none would come after him." But if this be so, 
we are left in perplexity as to how it can be true that Jesus "never 
overstepped the limits of the purely human." 



Translation is a winnowing process, so that Lives of Christ 
which have been translated may be reckoned among the best 
of the foreign works. When we turn to works by English writers 
we must ourselves make the selection from a large number, some 



APPENDIX 219 

of which are of slight value, though no book upon such an impor- 
tant subject can be wholly valueless. Many are the work of busy 
pastors — the outgrowth, perhaps, of a series of sermons — and, 
while not lacking in scholarship, their aim is chiefly devotional. 
Such, for example, are Lives by Beecher, Crosby, Deems, Eddy, 
Hanna. They are not intended for the student, and may be 
omitted from our list. 

Almost without exception the English lives are written from 
an orthodox stand-point, using all four of the gospels as reliable 
sources, recognizing the divinity of Jesus, and taking the Right 
as their position on miracles. Having so much in common, they 
need no detailed description. We mention only the more im- 
portant in chronological order. 

Ellicott, afterward Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, gave as the 
Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge in 1859 a course on the life of 
Christ. This was published with voluminous notes. The lect- 
ures are rhetorical and diffuse, but the notes are compact, keen, 
and scholarly, and, though written half a century ago, are still 
valuable. 

Andrews (1862, new edition thoroughly revised, 1891) confines 
himself to chronological, topographical, and historical details, 
discussing their problems with great minuteness. In this field 
his work has no equal, and is indispensable for the student. His 
divisions of the ministry, with a statement of the leading purpose 
and general character of each division, are suggestive and helpful. 
These and the other more important parts of the book are dis- 
tinguished by the use of a larger type. 

Abbott (1869) aims "to give the life and teachings of Christ that 
significance which is afforded by a knowledge of his times and 
circumstances — to present the life of Christ in its appropriate 
setting." At the time it was written this was a valuable work; 
but the later environmental Lives have largely superseded it, and 
the book is out of print. 

Farrar (1874) designed his book for popular reading, and it 
certainly has attained its object, having been more widely circu- 
lated than any other English Life of Christ. It is diffuse in style 
and marred by attempts at fine writing. In this book and "The 
Life of St. Paul" and "The Early Days of Christianity" he 
covers the whole of New Testament times. In popularity the 



/ 



220 APPENDIX 

three books stand in the order above given, which is the order of 
their publication, but in scholarly worth they stand in exactly the 
reverse order. 

Geikie (1877) gives another popular Life written along the same 
lines as that by Farrar. He has brought together in a huge and 
indiscriminate mass all the information that he could gather con- 
cerning the environment; and we are overwhelmed by it, and 
sometimes almost lose sight of the central figure. He also presents 
in diffuse paraphrase all of Christ's teachings. The book would 
be greatly improved by selection and condensation. 

Stalker (1879) wrote his Life as one of a series of hand-books 
for Bible classes. His endeavor was " to throw into prominence 
the great masses of our Lord's life, and point out clearly its hinge 
events, details being as much as possible curtailed." He has 
succeeded admirably, and his little book gives a clear and interest- 
ing outline which every student will find of great value at the out- 
set of his studies. It is the book for a beginner. 

Edersheim (1883) is probably the best of the popular writers. 
He was reared as a Jew, and is therefore familiar with the details 
of Jewish life and the lore of the Talmud, both of which he uses 
to illustrate his subject. Though somewhat mystical, he is very 
helpful in his reverent interpretation of Christ's words and deeds. 
His book is one which all general readers should own. 

Fairhairn (1889), in his "Studies in the Life of Christ," takes 
only the leading topics, and has in mind the needs of the scholar. 
Though prepared originally as a series of pulpit discourses, it 
ranks among the most thoughtful and suggestive of English works 
and will well repay careful study. It should be better known. 

Gilbert (1896, new edition largely rewritten, 1900) fitly describes 
his book by calling it "The Student's Life of Jesus." It is a well- 
arranged text-book, taking up in detail the incidents in Christ's 
life (the teachings are reserved for his later work, "The Revelation 
of Jesus"), and discussing them with frank recognition of scepti- 
cal objections and with able defence of orthodox conclusions. It 
needs to be supplemented by some work which gives the environ- 
ment and brings out more clearly the divisions and progress of 
Christ's ministry. 

Rhees (1900) gives us another text-book which in method is the 
exact opposite of Gilbert. Without discussing separate incidents 



APPENDIX 221 

minutely, he offers a broad view of the historical setting and 
progress of Christ's life, and the problems it presents. Gilbert 
and Rhees taken together make an excellent combination for the 
student's purpose. 

Dawson (1901) states that his object is " to depict the human life 
of Jesus as it appeared to his contemporaries, with a purposed 
negligence, as far as it is possible, of the vexed problems of theology 
and metaphysics." He rearranges events with great freedom and, 
though recognizing the miraculous in Christ's life, minimizes it as 
much as possible. The book is graphically written, but its atti- 
tude will hardly please either the devout or the sceptical. 

Sanday (1905) is the writer of the article on Jesus Christ in 
"Hastings's Bible Dictionary," and this article has been reprinted 
as a separate volume with the title "Outlines of the Life of 
Christ." It is a very able production, replete with the latest 
scholarship, and it makes us look forward eagerly to the larger 
work on the same subject in preparation by the author. The 
average reader will probably find the book too condensed and pre- 
supposing too much familiarity with its subject; but the student 
who is prepared to profit by it will be charmed with its fresh, 
stimulating and broad treatment of the problems it discusses. 

Smith (1905), under the title "The Days of His Flesh," treats 
the life of Jesus along the lines of Edersheim and Farrar, but with 
much freshness and occasional fancifulness. He prefaces his work 
with a discussion of the sources, in which he makes the synoptics 
depend upon the oral tradition rather than upon any earlier 
documents. The book is an excellent one for the general reader. 

Schmidt (1905), in "The Prophet of Nazareth," discusses many 
topics that bear upon the origin of the belief, which he rejects, that 
Jesus was divine, but devotes only one chapter to an account of 
the life of Jesus as it may be constructed after discarding all the 
supernatural. The book is intended for students rather than for 
popular use, and is the ablest work from a rationalistic stand- 
point that has been put forth by an English or American author. 

Garvie (1907) says of his "Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus" : 
"The title indicates the purpose and the method of the book. It is 
the mind, heart, and will of Jesus as revealed in his words and /,-- 
work that the writer seeks to understand." It is a very careful 
and illuminating treatment of the questions that arise in connec- 



222 APPENDIX 

tion with the chief points in Christ's ministry. The student who 
has made himself familiar with the details of Jesus' life, and wishes 
to go further and study their full significance will find this book 
most helpful and suggestive. It is the work of a scholar who 
recognizes present-day problems and sets himself sympathetically 
to aid those who are seeking their solution. The critical introduc- 
tion, discussing the value of the sources, is also to be commended. 

'XI 

"To write the Life of Christ ideally is impossible. And even to 
write such a Life as should justify itself either for popular use or for 
study is a task of extreme difficulty." So says Sanday at the close 
of his Outlines, and he adds: "Great as are the merits of these 
modern works, there is none (at least none known to the writer) 
which possesses such a balance and combination of qualities as 
to rise quite to the level of a classic." Our review of the literature 
shows that his opinion is well-founded. The demands which a 
Life of Christ makes upon its author are greater than we can hope 
to have met by any one man. He must be a profound scholar, 
a keen critic, an unbiased judge, a master of literary style, and, 
above all, an earnest, reverent disciple of the Master: the Christ 
of history is best known through the Christ of personal experience. 

"Taken as a whole," says Fairbairn, "though it is a whole that 
admits remarkable rather than weighty exceptions — we may say 
that the more recent Lives are distinguished by a growing sense 
of being on firm historical ground, and of using sources that the 
more they are critically handled can be the more intelligently 
trusted." This is a great gain, and encourages us to look forward 
with hopefulness to works yet to be produced. There never was 
a time when the life of Christ was more eagerly and enthusiastically 
studied, and when a work upon that subject reached as large a 
body of careful readers. And though the ideal Life may never 
be written, we can confidently expect that the present century will 
give us something better than the past has ever produced. To 
forecast its form is impossible, but everything indicates that its 
conclusions concerning the Founder of our religion will be in 
harmony with the story of the evangelists and the faith of the 
Christian church. 



INDEX 



Abbot, Ezra, place in discovery of 

the Diatessaron, 90. 
Abbott, Lyman, Life of Christ, 219. 
Acts of Pilate, 23. 
Agrapha, 17 /. 
Alexandrian text, 63. 
Alexandrinus, Codex, 53. 
Allen, W. C, on authorship of 

Matthew, 148. 

Andrew, Gospel of, 33. 

Andrews, Life of Christ, 219. 

Antiochian text, 62. 

Apocalypses, influence on Jewish 
thought, 195/.; relation to career 
of Jesus, 196 ff. 

Apocryphal gospels, 21 ff.', apologetic 
value, 24. 

Apologists, 42; their canon of gos- 
pels, 43, 86. 

Apostles, attitude toward miracles, 

97; not idealized in gospels, 99; 

could gain nothing by fraud, 172; 

competent witnesses, 175 ff. 
Apostolic Fathers, 15; their account 

of Jesus, 16; use of our gospels, 

86. 
A^bic Gospel of the Infancy, 23. 
Ariston, possible author of Mark 

16:9-20, 81. 

Augustine, solution of synoptic 
problem, 107. 

Barnabas, Gospel of, 33. 

Bartholomew, Gospel of, 33. 

Baur, F. C, leader of Tubingen 
School, 206; test of the date of a 
gospel, 207; little part assigned 
to Jesus, 209. 

Beecher, Life of Christ, 219. 

Bezae, Codex, 54; peculiarities, 63 /. 

Bohairic version, 76. 

Bossuet, on chronology of gospels, 
201; Life of Christ, 218. 

Browning, "Death in the Desert," 
139. 



Bruce, A. B., on authorship of John, 
122; on miracles and trustworthi- 
ness of the gospels, 188. 

Burton, E. D., purpose of Matthew, 
151^. 

Canon, meaning of the term, 38; 
formation of, 37 ff. 

Character of Jesus, the same in all 
four gospels, 178; unique, 179; 
impossible to invent, 180 ff. 

Christianity, not based on a book, 

35/. 
Clement of Alexandria, John the 

spiritual gospel, 131; Peter living 

when Mark wrote, 157. 

Clement of Rome, possible quotation 
from Matthew, 87. 

Codices, origin, 49; description of 
the most famous, 53 /. 

Councils of the church, action on the 

canon, 43 /. 
Crosby, Life of Christ, 219. 
Curetonian Syriac version, 74. 
Cursives, 50 /. 

Dawson, Life of Christ, 221. 

Deems, Life of Christ, 219. 

Deissmann, on the canon, 44; 
ostraca, 47. 

"Descent into Hades," 23. 

Diatessaron of Tatian, 88 ff. 

"Ecce Deus," by Joseph Parker, 
212. 

"Ecce Homo," by J. R. Seeley, 
211. 

Eddy, Life of Christ, 219. 

Edersheim, description of Talmud, 
9; Life of Christ, 220. 

Egyptian versions, 76. 

Egyptians, Gospel of, 33. 

Ellicott, Life of Christ, 219. 

Ephraem, commentary on the Dia- 
tessaron, 88 /. 

Ephraemi, Codex, 53. 

Erasmus, text of N. T., 57. 



223 



224 



INDEX 



Errors, in manuscripts, 55 if.', in 
apostolic testimony, 177. 

Eusebius, about woman taken in 
adultery, 32, 82; quotes Papias, 
40, 111; possible relation to early 
codices, 55. 

Ewald, Life of Christ in his History 
of Israel, 208. 

Fairbaim, on Paulus, 191; opinion of 
" Ecce Homo," 212; Life of Christ, 
220; judgment of recent Lives, 22. 

Farrar, Life of Christ, 219. 

Fathers, quotations in the, 76 /. 

Fisher, G. P., 88. 

Fleetwood, John, Life of Christ, 203. 

Fouard, Life of Christ, 213. 

Freer, manuscript of gospels, 65 n. 

Garvie, A. E., on environment as 
explaining career of Jesus, 201 /.; 
"Inner Life of Jesus," 221. 

Geikie, Life of Christ, 220. 

Gilbert, Life of Christ, 220. 

Gloag, on style of John, 169 /. 

Gnostics, used Gospel of Egyptians, 
33; influence on canon, 41/. 

Gore, on the apostles as witnesses, 
176 /.; on miracles of Jesus, 193. 

Gospels, probable origin, 25 ff.; early 
opinion of their sacredness, 29, 45, 
57; not the basis of belief in 
Christ, 35/.; canon, 37^.; oral pre- 
ferred, 26, 39; originally copied 
with little care, 45; text, 55 if 
date, 84 if.; accuracy in historical 
facts, 95; freedom from anachron 
isms, 96 /.; original titles, 102 /. 
synoptic problem, 103 if.; Johan 
nine problems, 118 if.; character 
istics, 145 if.; symbolized, 145. 
trustworthiness, 171 if.; use for a 
Life of Christ, 185 ff.; attitude 
of critics toward them, 186 / . 
biographies or memorabilia, 199 /. 

Greek of New Testament, 71 /. 

Gregory, C. R., opinion of Syrian 
text, 62; groups of text, 66; ac- 
curacy of text, 78. 

Grenfell and Hunt, new sayings of 
Jesus, 17 if. 

Hanna, Life of Christ, 219. 

Heathen writers, little reason to 
mention Jesus, 1 /.; Tacitus, 3; 
Suetonius, 3; Pliny the Younger, 
4; value of their testimony, 5. 



Hebrews, Gospel of, 30 if. 
Hegelianism, used by Tubingen 

School in early church history, 

207. 

Holtzmann, value of Gospel of 
Hebrews, 31; criticized by Illing- 
worth, 143; Life of Jesus, 217. 

Illingworth, criticism of Holtzmann, 
143/. 

Irenaeus, on authorship of the gos- 
pels, 91 if., 120; on Polycarp, 92 /.; 
Peter and Paul dead when Mark 
wrote, 157. 

Jackson, S. M., on Keim's Life of 
Jesus, 213. 

John the apostle, teacher of Poly- 
carp, 93; author of gospel, 119 if.; 
motives for writing, 132 /.; re- 
ceptivity, 137 /. 

John the Baptist, account by Jo- 
sephus, 6. 

John the presbyter, 40, 120. 

John, Gospel of, date, 100; impres- 
sions of its value, 118; author- 
ship, 119 /.; trustworthiness, 122, 
129; Johannine problem, 123 ff.; 
purpose, 132 /., 137; an interpre- 
tation, 139, 142; arrangement, 
166 /.; analysis, 168; style, 169 /. 

John 5 : 3-4, 82. 

John 7 : 8, 60 /. 

John 7 : 53—8 : 11, 32, 81 /. 

John 21 : 24, 84, 119. 

Joseph the Carpenter, History of, 23. 

Josephus, account of John the Bap- 
tist, 6; mention of Jesus, 6 if. 

Jiilicher, authorship of fourth gos- 
pel, 121; Johannine problem, 1*3; 
on importance of Matthew, 154. 

Justin Martyr, account of Jesus, 16; 
"Memoirs of the Apostles," 87 /., 
91. 

Keim, on Paul's account of Jesus, 
15; on apocryphal gospels, 34; 
opinion of miracle at Jericho, 192; 
Life of Christ, 212. 

Lake, value of patristic quotations, 

77. 
Lange, Life of Christ, 206. 
Lecky, on character of Jesus, 179 /. 
Lectionaries, 52. 
Lewis Syriac version, 75. 



INDEX 



225 



Lives of Christ, by Abbott, 219; 
Andrews, 219; Beecher, 219; Bos- 
suet, 218; Crosby, 219; Dawson, 
221; Deems, 219; Eddy, 219; 
Edersheim, 229; Ellicott, 219; 
Ewald, 208; Fairbairn, 220; Far- 
rar, 219; Fleetwood, 203; Fou- 
ard, 213; Garvie, 221; Geikie, 
220; Gilbert, 220; Hanna, 219; 
Holtzmann, 217; Keim, 212; 
Lange, 206; Neander, 206; Par- 
ker, 212; Pressensd, 210; Renan, 
209; Sanday, 221; Schmidt, 221; 
Seeley, 211; Smith, 221; Stalker, 
220; Stapfer, 215; Rhees, 220; 
Strauss, 204; Taylor, 203; Weiss, 
214; lacking in Mediaeval Age, 
203; a task of extreme difficulty, 
222. 

Logia, 112 f.; use in Matthew, 114, 
152; use in Luke, 115, 163. 

Luke the evangelist, preface to his 
gospel, 25, 29; author of gospel, 
160/.; sourcesof information, 161; 
purpose, 162 /.; literary and his- 
torical skill, 163. 

Luke, Gospel of, origin, 115; read- 
ers, 162; characteristics, 164 /. 
Luke 22 : 43-44, 82. 
Luke 23 : 34a, 83. 

Manuscripts, material, 46 if.; age, 
how determined, 50/.; number and 
designation, 52; errors, 55 if. 

Mark the evangelist, statement by 
Papias, 111; personal history, 

154 /.; relation to Peter, 155. 
Mark, Gospel of, based on Peter, 113, 

155 /.; purpose, 156 /.; character- 
istics, 158 ff.; importance, 160. 

Mark 16 : 9-20, 48, 79 /. 

Matthew the apostle, 148; his 

Logia, 112; probably not author 

of First Gospel, 148 /. 
Matthew, Gospel of; origin, 114 /.; 

authorship, 148/.; purpose, 149 ff.; 

importance, 154. 

Messianic proclamations of Jesus, in 
Synoptics and in John, 127, 139 ff.; 
influence of apocalyptical ideas, 
196 ff. 

Mill, John Stuart, opinion of John, 
118; gospel story not an inven- 
tion, 183. 

Miracles, relation to credibility of 
gospels, 85, 188 if.;^ attitude of 
Jesus, 98; deserve fair treatment, 
174; harmonize with character of 
Jesus, 181; treatment of them by 
critics, 188 /.; career and teach- 



ings of Jesus vitally connected 
with them, 191 if.; use as proof of 
Christ's divinity, 194; theory of 
Strauss, 205; attitude of Ritsch- 
lianism, 215. 

Mistakes of copyists, 56 /. 

Mitchell, on value of versions, 71. 

Montanists, influence on canon, 41 /. 

Myths, develop rapidly, 173; theory 
of Strauss, 205. 

Nativity of Mary, Gospel of, 23. 
Neander, Life of Christ, 206. 
Nero, persecution of Christians, 3, 
28. 

Neutral text, 65. 

New Testament books other than 
Gospels, give few additional facts 
about Jesus, 11 /.; confirm the gos- 
pel story, 12 if., 178. 

Nicodemus, Gospel of, 23. 

Old Latin versions, 73 /. 

Oral gospel, preferred to written, 

26, 39; origin, 109 /. 
Origen, testimony about Josephus, 

8; on gospel of John, 170. 

Ostraca, 46; value for text of gos- 
pels, 47. 

Oxyrhynchus papyri, 17 /., 33. 

Papias, preference for oral teaching, 
26, 39/.; story of woman taken in 
adultery, 82; on Mark and Mat- 
thew, 111 /. 

Papyrus, manufacture, 47 /.; manu- 
scripts, 49. 

Parchment, 49. 

Parker, Joseph, "Ecce Deus," 212. 

Passing of Mary, 23. 

Passover, relation to Last Supper, 

125, 135. 
Patristic quotations, 76 /. 

Paul, knowledge of Jesus, 13; con- 
firms the gospel story, 14 /., 178. 

Paulus, treatment of miracles, 190 /. 

Peabody, F. G., opinion of "Ecce 
Homo," 212. 

Peshitta, 74. 

Peter, Gospel of. 33. 

Philo, silence about Jesus natural, 

5. 
Pliny the Younger, letter to Trajan, 

4. 



226 



INDEX 



Plummer, on literary skill of Luke, 
163. 

Polycarp, link between Irenaeus and 
John, 92 /. 

Pressensd, Life of Christ, 210. 

Protevangelium of James, 23. 

Pseudo-Matthew, Gospel of, 23. 

Q, the source document, 116. 
Quotations, in the Fathers, 76 /. 

Ramsay, W. M., opinion of Luke, 
163. 

Renan, opinion of miracle at Beth- 
any, 192; Vie de J^sus, 209; em- 
phasis of environment, 212. 

Rhees, Life of Christ, 220. 
Ritschlianism, treatment of the Life 
of Christ, 215. 

Robertson, J., no indirect discourse 
in Hebrew, 136. 

Robinson, J. A., conversational tone 
of Mark, 158. 

Sanday, on Browning's "Death in 
the Desert," 139; opinion of 
Weiss, 214; Life of Christ, 221; 
estimate of modern Lives, 222, 

Schaff, Philip, on the Apostolic 
Fathers, 15; opinion of the Fourth 
Gospel, 118. 

Schmidt, Prophet of Nazareth, 221. 
Schmiedel, sceptical treatment of 
the gospels, 186. 

Seeley, J. R., "Ecce Homo," 211. 

Sinaitic Syriac version, 75. 

Sinaiticus, Codex, 54. 

Smith, D., Life of Christ, 221. 

Smith, Goldwin, opinion of the mir- 
acles of Jesus, 181. 

Smith, H. B., criticism of Renan, 
210. 

Sources for a Life of Christ, heathen 
writers, 1 ff.; Jewish writers, 5 if.; 
Acts and N. T. epistles, 11 if.; Apos- 
tolic Fathers, 15 if.; apocryphal 
gospels, 21 if.; N. T. Gospels, 35 if. 

Stalker, Life of Christ, 220. 

Stapfer, Life of Christ, 215. 

Strauss, Life of Christ, 204; myth- 
ical theory, 205; little part as- 
signed to Jesus, 209. 



Suetonius, mention of Chrestus, 3 /. 

Symbols for the Gospels, 145. 

Synoptic gospels, 104 /.; their prob- 
lem and its proposed solutions, 
106 if.; use for a Life of Christ, 
198 f. 

Syriac versions, 74 /. 

Syrian text, 62. 

Tacitus, mention of Jesus, 3. 

Talmud, origin, 8; allusions to 
Jesus, 9 /. 

Tatian's Diatessaron, 88 if. 
Taylor, Jeremy, Life of Christ, 
203. 

Text of Gospels, sources of error 
55 if.; Syrian or Antiochian, 62 
Alexandrian, 63; Western, 63 /.. 
Neutral, 65; correctness, 78; im- 
portant changes, 79 if. 

Thomas, Gospel of, 23; repulsive in- 
cidents, 24, 182. 

Tubingen School, view of early 
church history, 207; later in- 
fluence, 207 /. 

Twelve, Gospel of the, 33. 

Uncials, 50 f. 
Ur-Marcus, 114. 

Van Dyke, Jesus not an imaginary 

person, 183. 
Vaticanus, Codex, 53. 

Versions, 69 /.; Latin 73; Syriac, 
74; Egyptian, 76. 

Vulgate, 73. 

Weiss, Life of Christ, 214. 

Wendt, teachings of Jesus alike in 
John and synoptics, 130, 136; 
Logia, 152. 

Westcott, B. F., on authorship of 
John, 121. 

Westcott and Hort, on falsification 
of text, 61; grouping of manu- 
scripts, 62 /.; opinion of correct- 
ness of text, 78. 

Western text, 63 /. 

Zahn, reconstruction of the Diates- 
saron, 90. 



MOV 6 1911 



peacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnoloqies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Onve 
Cranberry Township, pa 16066 
(724)779-2111 



/ ■♦^' 



One copy del. to Cat. Div. 



NOV 8 »^'^ 



